• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:04:17 -0400

Simon St.Laurent wrote:


> 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.

 
> I guess that would make the layering of XML 1.0 on top of Unicode more
> explicit.


The trouble is stability vs. extensibility.  XML 1.0 has remained stable
since 1998 at the expense of extensibility.

-- 
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...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• 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...>

• 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