• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Vincent-Olivier Arsenault <vincent@n...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:18:55 -0400

Vincent-Olivier Arsenault wrote:


> Well mmm, not enough I'd say : why is there a need for so many character 
> classes and DERIVATION rules (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#CharClasses)?


Most of that is descriptional baggage.  XML really only needs
to characterize each character as:

	legal in names
	legal as the first character of a name
	not legal at all.

I have a set of rules (which the Core WG has not yet considered)
which do the Right Thing in Unicode terms, while remaining backward
compatible, such that every XML 1.0 document can be changed to a
Blueberry document just by affixing the Blueberry mark.

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: Vincent-Olivier Arsenault <vincent@n...>

• References:
  • XML Blueberry
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: Vincent-Olivier Arsenault <vincent@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Blueberry
• Next by Date: Re: XML Blueberry
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Blueberry
• Next by thread: Re: XML Blueberry
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread