• From: Vincent-Olivier Arsenault <vincent@n...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:02:53 -0400

At 05:18 PM 6/21/01, John Cowan wrote:
>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 think that's a forward incompatible way of seeing things, why not, 
instead, think in terms of reserved characters and escape sequences (< 
&, etc.). Or better, having ABSOLUTELY (new) reserved characters and 
not bother about that at all (leave it ALL to UNICODE)! Yeah that's more 
complicated, yet it IS feasible with a reasonable level of cooperation from 
UNICODE (I'm sure they can manage that).

v

• 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...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• 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