- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:06:51 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jean-Jacques Solari <solarijj@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
* Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >> 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. The \377 would appear when `nonascii` is defined as positive class that includes all characters in the range, while above it's a negative class. In css3-selectors the two relevant character classes have been made two negative classes, while in the CSS 2.0 they are positive ones, but the note about the interpretation of \377 was errorneously copied and kept. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2013 17:07:23 UTC