Re: OOPS! META got promoted; why did nbsp go away?

• Mail folder: html-archive
• Next message: Peter Flynn: "Re: Perceived Consensus: Murray's entity stuff goes in"
• Previous message: Eric W. Sink: "Re: Perceived Consensus: Murray's entity stuff goes in"
• Maybe in reply to: Eric W. Sink: "OOPS! META got promoted; why did nbsp go away?"
• Reply: Murray Maloney: "Re: OOPS! META got promoted; why did nbsp go away?"

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 17:50:04 EDT
Message-id: <199410072142.WAA06354@curia.ucc.ie>
Reply-To: pflynn@curia.ucc.ie
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: OOPS!  META got promoted; why did nbsp go away?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)

> Why did nbsp go away?  I may have missed the reasoning behind its
> removal, but I consider it current practice, and believe that it
> should be part of the standard, or at least proposed.

Agreed. But we _are_ talking about &nbsp; aren't we, not <nbsp> ?

///Peter