Sorry, make that: "For many years, there was hardly any system that did not implement ISO 8859-1 but implemented Unicode, but there were systems that did the opposite."
------Original Message------ From: Doug Ewell Sender: [email protected] To: Jukka K. Korpela To: [email protected] Subject: Re: How is NBH (U0083) Implemented? Sent: Aug 4, 2011 06:13 Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > So in effect, ZWNBSP still means "don't break", though the standard > says that so does the WORD JOINER and recommends that it be used > instead. In practice, there is hardly any system that does not > implement the ZWNBSP semantics but implements the WORD JOINER > semantics, but there are systems that do the opposite. This makes it > easy to decide which one is safer to use. I don't agree with Yucca's basic argument here. For many years, there was hardly any system that did not implement Unicode but implemented ISO 8859-1, but there were systems that did the opposite. For a lot of vendors, this made it easy to decide which one was safer to use. I'd be interested in seeing a partial list of systems or applications that implement U+FEFF as ZWNBSP, with all of the (non-BOM) semantics that implies, or existing texts that use U+FEFF for that purpose. I'd be surprised if there were many. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell -- Doug Ewell • [email protected] Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
