A proposed solution for descriptions

Doug Ewell dewell at adelphia.net
Sun Jun 18 22:42:25 CEST 2006

Mark Crispin <mrc at CAC dot Washington dot EDU> wrote:

> My position is somewhat mis-represented here.
> Yes, I object to
>  Description: N&#x2019;Ko
> However, that objection is ameliorated by:
>  Description: N'Ko
>  Description: N&#x2019;Ko
> and completely satisfied
>  Description: N'Ko
>  Description: N<U+2019>Ko
> I prefer the latter, since <U+2019> is a metaword convention, already 
> in use, that states "Unicode codepoint 2019 goes here".  &#x2019; is 
> SGML blather that should never be inflicted upon innocent human eyes.

We had this discussion in LTRU.  I don't remember what the specific 
reaction was to the U+ notation, or even if it was proposed by anyone, 
but the hex NCRs are what we agreed on.  The U+ notation is not 
permitted by the syntax of the approved draft, and in order to allow it, 
we would have to change the syntax in the next revision and take the 
heat for breaking compatibility from one version to the next.

Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list