- From: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:17:01 -0800
- To: www-html@w3.org
At 6:03a +0100 11/27/96, Drazen Kacar wrote: >Walter Ian Kaye wrote: >> >> Not sure what "existing practice" is, or is expected to be, but if a person >> is using a certain charset specified via HTTP (or <meta http-equiv=...>), >> then why would numeric charrefs be needed in the first place? The only >> possible reason would be to include characters in Latin-1 or Unicode, since >> the page would already have all characters in the specified charset >>available. >> Thus, usage of NCRs for a non-Unicode/Latin1 charset makes no sense, and any >> such pages deserve to break. :-) > >But you didn't consider cheesy little editors (I don't mean Emacs). >They will do it for you. Or "to" you? <G> >On Windows, in particular. When you're not using >Latin 1, they will assume you do, because, what else could you be using? > >And they will insert entities, tons of them. Some of them will be in the >128-159 range. These will be numeric, others will be simbolic. Well, that's not an "existing practice" problem, that's software bugs which should be reported to the developers of those..uh.."cheesy little" editors. >Thus, usage of HTML editors makes no sense, and their authors deserve to >break a leg. >:) How about a "certification" service of some sort, to award a "badge" to those editors which output valid HTML? (There won't be too many awards!) All 50 of the pages on my site are hand-coded. 3 pages contain discrete chunks of generated code (for calendars and guitar chords), that's it. And the HTML generators I use were written by *me*, so I can put my total trust in the validity of their output! :-) __________________________________________________________________________ Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com> Programmer - Excel, AppleScript, Mountain View, CA ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML http://www.natural-innovations.com/ Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 1996 03:41:33 UTC