Named vs. numerical entities - Page 5

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Named vs. numerical entities

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Andy Dingley wrote:
> > How portable is —, as a very general thing,
> > relative to say,   ?
> That notation is technically meaningless (in HTML) and AFAIK illegal
> in XHTML.

Hah!  You caught me out well and truly there!!

There's nothing wrong with 160, it's a no-break space.

The windows-1252 code for your em dash would be 151.  And there I was,
posting on autopilot, assuming that's what you had typed.  Well, hit
me down with a clue by four...

But the rest of what I wrote was, at least, what I intended.  Sorry
about that.

Re: Named vs. numerical entities

>If you use
>numbers between 128 and 159 respectively, then you're not really
>writing HTML, but some kind of quasi-MSHTML which even MS are weaning
>themselves off now.

That last part would be good news, but I must have missed it.
Microsoft are actually embracing Net standards?

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
HTML 4.01 spec: /
validator: /
CSS 2 spec: /
   2.1 changes:
validator: /

Site Timeline