Re: How is NBH (U0083) Implemented?

From: Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:46:37 +0000

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: unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org
To: Jukka K. Korpela
To: unicode_at_unicode.org
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  doug_at_ewellic.org
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Received on Thu Aug 04 2011 - 07:48:37 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Aug 04 2011 - 07:48:38 CDT