http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5221



--- Comment #17 from Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> 2011-01-31 14:17:09 PST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > That book was published in 2006. Can we assume that unicode support is
> > widespread enough now that we should change to the more correct value?
> 
> I would assume it to be safe to change. Having looked up on the reference
> myself, it appears to be added as part of the HTML5 standard?

Yes. The old definition was in 4.01, back in 1999. And here's the problem --
HTML5 still hasn't been ratified, and the documents all say "draft". 

I wrote these next two lines:
"So, I'm not sure that we can use these entity values yet. Are we certain that
they're not going to change them before HTML5 becomes official?"

and then I read this:
http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5
indicating that html5 will never happen, and the draft documents are as
"standard" as it's ever going to get. That's a spectacular failure.

So I guess there's no reason to hold off on the patch.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to