Jambunathan K <kjambunat...@gmail.com> writes: > Rasmus <ras...@gmx.us> writes: > >>> With some scripting, this pulling can be made less laborious but more >>> complete. >> >> Would you be able to get the HTML entities? Nicolas said that Org >> "prefers" entity names due to encoding. I can find the unicode number >> in Emacs, but not it's name. This is often the laborious part. > > Why use name when it is easier to use the numerical value?
Don't know. Here's a quote from earlier. I personally didn't look further into it. >> I wrote: >> 2. HTML symbols have been tested in Firefox. In a few cases I >> couldn't find a pretty name (like "π") in which case I've >> supplied the unicode number (like "&960;"). Is that OK? (E.g. can >> Org produce non-uft8 HTML?) > Nicolas wrote: > I think it can: see `org-html-coding-system'. It may be wiser to avoid > these symbols altogether. > Something like — should be good for —. (You can get the code > value by doing the C-u C-x = on the displayed character.) Irrespective of encoding? > ,---- > | character: — (displayed as —) (codepoint 8212, #o20024, #x2014) > | ^^^^^^ > | name: EM DASH > `---- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > I see that the entity names are listed in > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-entity-names/byalpha.html Right. Are we having (huge) gaps somewhere worth fixing? –Rasmus -- This space is left intentionally blank
