RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Pytho
Well file (3.37) under Cygwin says foo.xml: XML document text so it must just be good old XML, right? What's the big problem here? %^} Mike -----Original Message----- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:39 AM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ? On Friday 21 December 2001 09:13 am, Champion, Mike wrote: > Right. That's why these various "death of text" and "can't edit with a text > editor" and "breaking Unix" threads mystify me: XML 1.0 opened the door to > all these problems. If folks have gotten by just fine using their ASCII > tools with XML 1.0, that's not likely to change with 1.1. OK, so you COULD > get an XML 1.1 (as drafted) document with NELs rather than LFs or various > control characters in it that may confuse vi or sed or more. I can't > imagine that these tools handle UTF-16 gracefully, so people who are > getting by with ASCII tools are getting by because of CONVENTIONS, not > STANDARDS. True enough. The case you're arguing for though is that all text processing tools need to change. In the long run, you may be right. FWIW. let's stop making this a theoretical thing. I've attached a file that I think should be a well-formed XML 1.1 document, assuming ESC and other control characters are allowed, encoded in US-ASCII (or UTF-8). Play with it a bit, and tell me what you think. Try doing a "cat foo.xml" on a Unix box, or "more foo.xml". Open it in emacs, and save it.
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