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

Re: XML and mainframes, yet again

• To: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Subject: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:45:55 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <03fb01c1859f$2c7a6e80$6800000a@b...> from David Brownellat "Dec 15, 2001 11:32:02 am"

David Brownell scripsit:

> It's good to remember that one reason they're a problem is that they
> have become a storehouse for vendor-proprietary characters, with
> as many different meanings as most C0 ones (U+0000..U+001F).
> Blessing one vendor's solution may magnify the problems.

Again, not really.  The *bytes* 80 through 9F encode many different
characters, including #x80 through #x9F.  There is really only one
set of uses in practice for the characters #x80 through #x9F.

-- 
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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• References:
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: So me comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Next by Date: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Previous by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Next by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread