[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Somecomme

• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Somecomments on the 1.1 draft)
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:50:54 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <000201c185d6$768d93d0$2ebc1840@A...> from Rick Jelliffeat "Dec 16, 2001 11:48:30 am"

Rick Jelliffe scripsit:

> Actually, at the time that XML 1.0 was created, the control characters 80-9F
> were undefined in Unicode.  Actually, I believe they still are (I am writing
> this away from an internet connection): Unicode only says what control
> characters they are by default, but a particular application can map them to
> private semantics.

That is so.  However, there has only ever been one practical set of uses
for #x80 through #x9F (as distinct from the hex bytes 80 through 9F as used
in various encodings).  For example, #9A represents CONTROL SEQUENCE INTRODUCER,
and is the 8-bit equivalent of the "ESC [" used in X3.64 (aka "ANSI") 
terminal controls.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@c...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

• References:
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Next by Date: Re: Suggestion for an alternative XML 1.1
• Previous by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Next by thread: The Wheels Are Grinding (Was RE: XML 1.0 (3rd Edition) (Was: XML-1.1 -- just ignore it))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread