Date:         Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:30:08 -0400
Reply-To:     UNICODE-MARC Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       UNICODE-MARC Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Houghton,Andrew" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Topic 1 Status?
Comments: To: UNICODE-MARC Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: UNICODE-MARC Discussion List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack (Sympatico)
> Sent: 04 October, 2005 09:04
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [UNICODE-M] Topic 1 Status?
> 
> I agree. Hexadecimal is to be preferred.
> Jack Cain
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UNICODE-MARC Discussion List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Smith,Gary
> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:55 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [UNICODE-M] Topic 1 Status?
> 
> 
> Charles Riley wrote: 
> 
> >> As far as NCR's go, it looks like we should decide whether we're
> discussing decimal or hexadecimal numeric character 
> references.  It's only a minor point, but could cause some 
> confusion if we don't explicitly specify this.  In the 
> examples that have been given so far, it looks like we're 
> discussing the hexadecimal NCR's for the most part.

I don't see that a choice needs to be made between decimal or
 hexadecimal character references.  Hexadecimal's are shorter
 most of the time and they match up well with the Unicode
 documentation.  However, both sequences are uniquely
 identifiable from a parsing standpoint and from a programmers
 perspective, converting the reference from decimal or hexadecimal
 is trivial.


Andy.