Re: SM from Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi on 2000-05-05 (www-html@w3.org from May 2000)

From: <Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 07:00:15 +0300 (EET DST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.10.10005050654420.4975-100000@beta.hut.fi>

On Thu, 4 May 2000, Joe Kaczmarek wrote:

> Sorry for causing such an uproar. I didn't originally ask "Should I code
> 'TM' as &#153;?" I asked about the future of including 'SM'.

You originally asked:
  Is "sm" an entity as "tm" (&#153;) is?
  If not, will it be?

Hopefully the incorrect assumptions have now been clarified.

Hopefully you have learned to check the existing specifications
as regards to the current status.

As regards to the future inclusion of new entities, hopefully not.
It would be rather pointless to add entities to myriads of
characters. They have already caused confusion, since different
browsers have started supporting different spellings (like &tm;
and &trade;, or &mdash; and &emdash;).

Remember that those entities are _only_ symbolic names for
constants (so to say). You can just use the numeric references.
(See http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/html/unicode.html for practical
info on finding them.)

-- 
Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ or http://yucca.hut.fi/yucca.html

Received on Friday, 5 May 2000 00:00:40 UTC