Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Closing Blueberry
Tim Bray scripsit:
> - John Cowan has proposed a sensible-looking method for
> writing the XML NAME rules by reference to Unicode
> metadata and thus achieving decoupling from any
> particular version of Unicode. I didn't see anyone
> raising problems with Johnn's approach, and lord
> knows there are people here who are qualified to
> spot 'em if they're there. Of course to use
> this fully, your Blueberry declaration would have to
> specify which version of Unicode it belonged to.
> [hmm... <foo xml:unicode="3.1">...</foo>?]
The ideas the Core WG kicked around look like:
<?xml version="1.0.1"?> (generic)
<?xml version="1.0a"?> ("a" is covertly "Unicode 3.1")
<?xml version="1.1" unicode="3.1"?>
But there are other possibilities.
> As for (b), unless someone is willing to make case
> for opening up deployed systems to pretty massive
> breakage in order to simplify the lives of a small
> and shrinking piece of the software development
> world... as I said, if this were a WG and I were
> chair I'd suggest an evident lack of consensus in
> favor of this change. -Tim
So it seems. But why are people who will accept (a) allergic
to (b)? Once you've opened up, you've opened up, and they
are both character-level issues.
Repeating: the NEL proposal does *not* change the grammar
of XML: what it does is add NEL and LS (U+2028) to the
list of things that are accepted externally and mapped
to LF first thing by the parser.
--
John Cowan cowan@c...
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
--Douglas Hofstadter
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
