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

Murray Maloney <murray@sco.COM>

Mail folder: html-archive
Next message: Murray Maloney: "Re: Perceived Consensus: Murray's entity stuff goes in"
Previous message: Murray Maloney: "Re: Perceived Consensus: The META element stays in the Proposed section"
Maybe in reply to: Peter Flynn: "Re: OOPS! META got promoted; why did nbsp go away?"

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 10:04:40 EDT
Message-id: <9410110955.aa23423@dali.scocan.sco.COM>
Reply-To: murray@sco.COM
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Murray Maloney <murray@sco.COM>
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)

When I was putting together the write-ups on character data
and entities, I tried each of the character positions and
discovered that neither &nbsp; nor &#160; worked in the 
browser that I was using (Mosaic 2.4).  I recall discussing
this with Dan via mail, and we agreed at the time that nbsp
was not as universally implemented as &lt;, &gt;, &amp; and
&quot;.  That's when I wrote the 2nd sentence in this paragraph:

	The upper 128 positions include a non-breaking space, 
	a soft hyphen indicator, 93 graphical characters, 8
	unassigned characters, and 25 control characters.
	<I>The non-breaking space and soft hyphen indicator are
	not recognized and interpreted by all HTML browsers, and 
	their use is discouraged. </I>

So, I may have misunderstood the situation.  In which case, that
sentence should be removed -- or at least softened.  In addition,
it would do well to add character position 160 to the chart of the
Latin-1 character entity set that I sent out, and add &nbsp; to
the chart of Numeric and Special Graphic Entities that I included
in the same file.

If I have not misunderstood, then I think that nbsp falls into the
same category as the other entities -- desirable but not standard.
It might yet be appropriate to soften the wording on the 2nd sentence.

> 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.
> 
> 
> --
> Eric W. Sink, Software Engineer --  eric@spyglass.com 217-355-6000 ext 237
> I don't speak for Spyglass.  They don't even let me adjust the thermostat.
>                                                                :-)  :-)
>     "Never put your tongue on a glacier."
> 
>