Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > It almost feels to me like those tables should be the responsibility of > > the Unicode folks (or some similarly lucky but separate intermediary > > with time on its hands) to maintain, and that some means of > > incorporating them by reference might have avoided this entire > > discussion. > > In essence they are: Unicode sets the character properties, and > XML has rules saying which types of characters can be used for what, > and what the exceptions are. That's not what Appendix B says ... it says normatively "these are the legal name/namestart/... character codes" (paraphrased) and everything else is vaguely explanatory. (It's weak on explanations for _why_ those exceptions to Unicode tables should have been made.) The Unicode tables (which change as Unicode evolves) aren't normatively referenced; the result of applying an algorithm (mentioned, non-normatively) to those tables is normative. On any platform with a decent Unicode library, it'd certainly be easier to use that directly -- java.lang.Character primitives are sort of in that category. Then when the platform upgrades its level of Unicode support, the documents accepted/generated as legal XML would change; not a good thing. Which is the point you made in a later followup. - Dave
|
