This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 17170 - Named character references table: mismatch between code point and glyph
Summary: Named character references table: mismatch between code point and glyph
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 12539
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-05-24 14:52 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2012-07-18 18:47 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2012-05-24 14:52:14 UTC 
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/named-character-references.html
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#entity-lang
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#entity-lang

Comment:
Named character references table: mismatch between code point and glyph

Posted from: 78.20.165.163 by mathias@qiwi.be
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_4) AppleWebKit/537.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/21.0.1148.0 Safari/537.1
Comment 1 Mathias Bynens 2012-05-24 15:13:23 UTC 
There appears to be a typo here: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/named-character-references.html#entity-lang

⟨ is a named character reference for U+027E8, but the glyph in the “glyph” column appears to be some other code point. Getting the value with JavaScript results in U+2329. (Oddly, downloading the HTML using `curl` and opening it in Vi, I got U+3008.)

The same goes for ⟨ (There appears to be a typo here: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/named-character-references.html#entity-langle).

I’ve noticed similar issues with these table entries:

⟨ (U+2329 instead of U+27E8)

 (U+240A instead of 0+000A)
⟩ (U+232A instead of U+27E9)
⟩ (U+232A instead of U+27E9)
⟩ (U+232A instead of U+27E9)
	 (U+2409 instead of U+0009)

Some of these might be intentional, but other than that, could you please check and verify that the right example glyphs are being used? Thanks.
Comment 2 Mathias Bynens 2012-05-30 09:05:02 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 12539 ***