- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 15:02:36 -0700
- To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
Walter Ian Kaye wrote: > Eventually you'll be able to use the Unicode equivalents (which you can find > at <http://www.natural-innovations.com/boo/doc-charset.html>) According to my ISO tables, the table at this address is incorrect. It lists #96 as an acute. According the ISO table in the PostScript reference manual, #96 is quoteleft. According the ISO8859-1 table at <http://www.sandia.gov/sci_compute/iso_symbol.html>, #96 is "grave accent- back apostrophe" (not the same, are they?). Acute accent is #180 in both tables. In the ASCII table at <http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Wilbur/latin1.gif>, #96 appears to be quoteleft. From whence came the ISO8859-1 and why are so many standard typographical entities missing? What's the dif between the ISO numbers in the Adobe PS manual and ISO8859-1? (The PS manual shows grave accent as the no-no number 145. Why 32 no-no numbers?). Why wait for Unicode? There are named entities for other characters not in ISO8859-1 -- why not for typographical quote marks? I vaguely remember a proposal for a quote tag. This strikes me as a good idea. Text can have <Q>true</Q> opening and closing quotes. > use...one of Netscape's supported charsets.... > ...you'd have to require Netscape for accurate rendering. No less evil than “codes like that”. David Perrell (a peripheral character in "Web Standards," by Franz Kafka)
Received on Thursday, 18 July 1996 18:02:58 UTC