In general I would agree. Just because the spec says something doesn't mean I agree with it, but it's still the spec. Why type & mdash ; when you can just type and
see —? And what's the point of the aforementioned bigodot anyway? But characters like non-breaking space, thin space, and hair space are slightly different.
Sure, I could
set up an easy way to type them. Besides which, Compose, space, space for nbsp is already there, or I could just use a Unicode character table. The problem is that I still couldn't really see them unless I paid extremely close attention — heck, non-breaking space is completely invisible in most circumstances. Is it there? Is it missing? Is it there by accident?
Ah, so just use & # 160 ; Well, I'd suspect anyone who thinks that's better than & nbsp ; of being a computer failing the Turing test.
