- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 09:24:21 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Jean-Jacques Solari <solarijj@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Jean-Jacques Solari wrote: >>The most likely place where you would be finding "\377" is in: >> >>… >>nonascii[^\Ø-\177] >>… >> >>But one reads "\177", not "\377", and it is even less to be read twice >>in the tokenization as advertised in the paragraph. > > That paragraph is obviously mistaken considering `377` does not appear > in the document anywhere else, but the `177` is not meant as `377`. I am > not sure where the `Ø` is from, in the Recommendation it is > > nonascii [^\0-\177] > > which is anything but 0x00 .. 0x7F, in other words, 0x80 .. 0xFF if the > maximum value is 0xFF (0o377 in octal). It can't be 0o377 because then > the set would be empty (anything but <minimum> ... <maximum>). I was *wondering* about that some time ago. I think you're right that it's just a persistent typo/misunderstanding for \177, unless someone can come up with a convincing argument for why "ASCII" is considered to extend all the way to U+00ff, when it's normally considered a 7-bit encoding, and thus goes only to U+007f. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 16:25:08 UTC