Re: Suggestion for an alternative XML 1.1
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit: > That's simply not true. Text editors on various platforms routinely > and transparently recognize the \n, \r, and \r\n line ending > conventions. vi does not, nor does Emacs. > It's not like NEL can do anything \r and \n can't do, or that > documents need all three at once. It's just a different and uncommon > convention to mean the same thing. This is not like adding the > Cyrillic alphabet on top of the Latin alphabet. They Cyrillic > alphabet lets you say things you can't say in ASCII. However, NEL > doesn't say anything new, just uses a different code point for the > exact same thing. Absolutely! And you would be making the exact same arguments if XML 1.0 accepted only #xD #xA as a valid line ending, and I were proposing adding support for just #xD and just #xA. The vast majority of all systems, after all, both generate and expect #xD #xA. -- 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
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