Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 04:02 PM 22/06/01 +0800, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >The first case is where XML is generated by a program, running on an IBM >system with this convention. In that case, there is no need to extend the >characters which the XML parser recognises as whitespace, because the >characters sent are under programmer control. And the parser does not >(should not) care about whether the IBM line-end character is sent as part >of data. >This only requires that the IBM line-end character should be allowed as part >of the document character set. I think this should be uncontraversial, and >only requires a 3rd edition of XML, as a correction. Nope. It's already a perfectly legal character. There are two problems, one minor and one major. The minor problem is that when it appears in character data, lots of unix & mac & windows software will not realize that there ought to be a line break. The major problem is that when it appears in a tag, e.g. <t a1="1" a2="2"> (where there's a NEL after the "1") then the XML processor will kick this out. -Tim
|
