Quote:>The most important bit is that authors should *not* use the ASCII
>characters 0x27 and 0x60 as pairs of opening and closing
>quotation marks, because that's what they stopped looking like
>on most systems.
Agreed, but on different grounds: the _meaning_ of 0x60 (U+0060) as
defined in character set standards is 'grave accent'. It is true that
the character has little if any use in its original meaning, but it
has then been taken to secondary uses (e.g. as a "backquote" in some
command or programming languages). It just adds to the confusion if it
is arbitrarily used for other purposes. Some notes on the grave
accent: http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/latin1/3.html#60
Quote:>Even in X11 fonts the straight ANSI/ISO/Unicode
>apostrophe on 0x27 is now being introduced.
Interestingly, it seems to me that IE displays or prints the
apostrophe sometimes as vertical, sometimes as curly, with no apparent
logic. The vertical display is the correct one. Admittedly the curly
one is often nice and what the author really wanted, but it's still
incorrect: the apostrophe is defined as a character with a vertical
glyph (yes, the Unicode standard says that - it usually does not
comment on glyph appearance, but here it does).
Quote:>If you want to have a
>proper curly apostrophe or right quotation mark, then you have to
>use the Unicode character ’ which is intended for exactly
>that purpose.
Correct, but in practical HTML authoring, ’ is certainly to be
preferred at present - it has a fair chance of getting displayed
correctly under favorable circumstances. (I was surprised at seeing
that IE 5 actually supports the hexadecimal notation too. But Netscape
4.5 doesn't for example.)
Usual caveats apply - one needs to weigh the better typographic
appearance (and more logical use of characters) against the practical
risk of making an HTML document messy in this respect. Using an
apostrophe is _safe_. My advice is to use characters like ’ only
if there is some _other_, more compelling reason to use &#bignumber;
references. It might be acceptable to reduce universal readability if
you need to be able to present a wide repertoire of characters (say,
mathematical and other special symbols), but _merely_ typographic
reasons are not good enough, IMHO. (Unless your document is _about_
typography or the use of punctuation characters.)
(On the other hand, I think was a very unfortunate decision by the
Unicode consortium to define the punctuation apostrophe to be the same
character as the right single quotation mark. They are logically quite
distinct characters and occur in similar contexts too.)
--
Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/
Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.