- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:53:11 -0600
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#value-def-identifier mentions U+00A1 > which has number 161 and seems about right. Yet the grammar defines nonascii > as anything beyond 177 which is U+00B1 which does not really make sense to > me. Thinking about it some more explicitly excluding 127-160 does not really > seem needed either to me and maybe they should become part of nonascii > (would also make the name somewhat more logical). > > Am I missing something? The U+00A1/U+00B1 thing feels like a mistake. I don't see any particular reason to distinguish A1-B0 from B1+. I can see why one might exclude 80-9F, though. Those codes are crazy. Not sure why A0 is particular excluded, though. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 15 February 2010 16:54:03 UTC