- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:38:43 +0300
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
2011-06-10 19:52 EEST: Joshua Cranmer: > On 6/10/2011 9:37 AM, Jack Smiley wrote: >> 3) Regarding the macro definition for nonascii, why does it go up to >> octal 237? (what's special about 237?) Why not octal 177 (decimal 127 >> -- standard ASCII) or octal 377 (decimal 255 -- extended ASCII)? > Presumably, 238 and above is where you have individually invalid octets > for UTF-8. Isn't anything that has 8th bit set possibly invalid in UTF-8? Octal 177 / decimal 127 makes more sense if UTF-8 compatibility is the reason for this limit. -- Mikko
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 09:39:17 UTC