Re: HTML 2.0 LAST CALL: Numeric character refs

Gavin Nicol (
Sat, 3 Jun 95 21:35:45 EDT

>This is the argument I've been waiting to hear. (except that the SGML
>standard is not vague on conformance.) It sounds good to me, but I
>thought we agreed that it was a good thing if all browsers handled
>this type of error the same way. The June 2 verbage is motivated by
>the fact that several widely deployed browsers behave that way.

The standard is not vague on conformance, I agree. However, I think
there are parts of the standard that appear to contradict each other,
if not in words, then certainly in intent (speaking of which, perhaps
we should ask Charles?).

I think we agreed that browsers should all handle this the same way
(though I don't really even feel strongly about that, except in the
default case), but we most certainly did not agree on what that
means. I am afraid that by introducing language now, we will be
limiting our options in the future (for example, I think it desireable
to indicate the error in some other way, or to be able to display
glyphs even if the system doesn't directly support them).

Anyway, this is a client-side issue, and people have said time and
again that the HTML-WG should not be specifying client implementation
details, which is precisely what this will do:

if(character_value > 255) {