Re: Small Bugs in ISO Characters in HTML Spec?

John C. Mallery (
Tue, 10 Jan 95 03:29:39 EST

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 00:17 EST
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>

Preface: I'm a minimalist. All these nit editing bugs in COMPLETELY
REDUNDANT parts of the HTML document are getting me down.

At least someone else is finding them for you. Cheer up! :-)

In message <>, John C. Mallery writes
>on page 46, &#94; is not listed. Should this be the character "^" ?

Yes, per ISO-646-IRV, character 94 is '^'.

Do you happen to have the correct description string for it?

If we just cited that
as a normative reference, we wouldn't have to maintain this stuff.
But we do...

Yup, if people are implementing out of the spec you do.

>on page 48, &#227; and &#228; have the same description string.
>It would be better if there were differences in in these strings
>so that programs can create standardized terms from them within

Again, this comes straing from ISO8559-1. Well.. the description
strings come from
"ISO 8879-1986//ENTITIES Added Latin 1//EN"

But my copy at


<!ENTITY atilde CDATA "&#227;" -- small a, tilde -->
<!ENTITY auml CDATA "&#228;" -- small a, dieresis or umlaut mark -->

so page 48 is wrong, I guess.

229 is wrong as well. It should be:

((229 "aring") "Small a, ring")

Keyboard macros make the spec into code pretty fast.

I hope the case sensitivity is right (boy do I hate case sensitivity).