- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:53:00 -0500
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >>According to http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#38 a data format or >>protocol may choose to ignore the BOM in the middle of a string. > > HTML doesn't choose that, though, so that isn't relevant to us. It would be if the HTML document in question passes through a processor that takes advantage of this allowance. You could of course encode it as a numerical entity. >>Anyway, I'm still uncomfortable with using a deprecated character that >>has a very special other meaning as a magic marker in WF 2.0. > > I'm not overjoyed with it myself, but I haven't got any better ideas. The > current system works quite well, and certainly works better than the "[]" > prefix that I first suggested. That's questionable. At least the [] was visible so you could tell it was there. I have a strong suspicion that editing invisible characters is more error-prone than editing visible ones. And the idea of a disappearing invisible character seems like it would be a bit bizarre to explain to the average person. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 28 December 2004 08:53:00 UTC