W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2000

RE: sbquo vs bdquo

From: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:36:35 +0100
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB5824A69@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
> From:	Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor [SMTP:roconnor@alumni.uwaterloo.ca]
> Isn't it weird that the entity for a single bottom quote is &sbquo; while
> the entity for a double bottom quote is &bdquo;?  I suppose it is way way
> to late to change the entity name for double bottom quote to &dbquo; to be
> more consistent with everything else.
	[DJW:]  I believe it is no longer considered a good idea
	to add named entities, which may not be known to browsers,
	even though they understand Unicode and can display the
	intended character.  In the worst case, new ones can
	break HTML that relies on browser error recovery for broken
	entities to allow GET type form URLs to be used in anchors
	without replacing the &'s with &amp; (or ; with cooperating

	It was probably valid when browsers were limited to
	ISO 8859/1 and, say, an uninterpreted &copy; would be more
	useful than an uninterpreted &#169;
--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
Received on Friday, 29 September 2000 13:36:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:54 UTC