• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:02:50 -0400

David Carlisle wrote:


> Do any files really use NEL that are encoded in utf-8 or utf-16 (or
> utf-8 subsets like ascii that don't need to be declared)?


Probably not.


> If all the files using NEL start 
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="some-flavour-of-ebcdic"?>
> Then can't NEL be mapped to #10 (0r #13) in the non normative support
> for the ebcdic related encodings. This wouldn't require any change to XML.


But it does require two different kinds of EBCDIC mapping: one for XML,
one for every other kind of text.  This is highly unsavory.


> [I]f NEL was added as a line
> end character as propsed in Blueberry it would presumably (?) be normalised
> along with the other line ends to #10. (section 2.11)


Yes.

-- 
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: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: Ed Chidester <echid@t...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• 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