Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
?= <80B2BC83D9C0D411AE7D0050BAB106DD010708B7@s...> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01062118254519.14039@m...> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thursday 21 June 2001 17:21, Mike.Champion@S... wrote: > > From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...] > > But wait! It's not even that bad. Several of the languages listed are > > total red herrings. > > This is an area that I know even less about, but I have been burned > repeatedly by taking the same position as Elliot Rusty Harold does. As I > understand it, the principal reason that people care about the characters > that are not in Unicode 2.0 is that they are widely used in proper names, > and people (and companies) *care* if they are constrained against using > their names in electronic communication. I don't disagree that as a > practical matter the people affected might well be content with the fact > that this only affects their ability to define names (of elements and > attributes) not actual text values. Nevertheless, as with line endings, > why not bite the bullet now and make XML Unicode 3.0-friendly and get on > with life? It's one of those issues that will require more energy to argue > about than to fix, I suspect. I agree with Mike here. XML is so defined that it's impossible to change anything about it without breaking backwards compat. I understand that the utility of writing element names in rare scripts seems marginal, but impose such a restriction ? By the time people bump into a document that uses such element names they'll have updated their parsers ten times over. For IBM I have no opinion. It's tempting though to show some other companies which I won't name what trouble it can bring them to try to dominate by breaking interoperability. -- _______________________________________________________________________ Robin Berjon <robin@k...> -- CTO k n o w s c a p e : // venture knowledge agency www.knowscape.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.
|
