- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:16:25 +0200
On Dec 28, 2004, at 18:53, fantasai wrote: > 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. Expecting NCRs to allow characters to be smuggled is unsafe, because clueful processing converts NCRs to straight characters. >>> 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. Indeed. Possible other magic marker characters: ASCII visible, easy to use with the US keyboard and reasonable with European keyboards U+007C VERTICAL LINE U+007E TILDE U+005E CIRCUMFLEX ACCENT Non-ASCII visible, available in legacy fonts, can be typed using Mac kb layouts: U+2022 BULLET -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Received on Sunday, 2 January 2005 06:16:25 UTC