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

Re: UTF-8+names

• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: UTF-8+names
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:08:19 -0700
• Cc: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <p06002000bbb7b88097f0@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <3F917A29.1000708@t...> <p06002001bbb7431b0313@[192.168.254.4]> <3F91AE40.7040706@t...> <p06002000bbb7b88097f0@[192.168.254.4]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> I'm still not convinced. These two documents are the same:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <root><</root>
> 
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8+names"?>
> <root>&lt;</root>

No, in UTF-8+names, &lt; isn't a predefined replacement - remember, it 
knows about the ones from HTML & MathML, but not the XML magic five; so 
these two docs are entirely different.  The second one would be accepted 
by an XML processor.

> Or am I missing something?

I think so.  Which probably means the documentation has to be clearer 
about this.
-- 
Cheers, Tim Bray (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)

• References:
  • UTF-8+names
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: UTF-8+names
• Next by Date: RE: UTF-8+names
• Previous by thread: Re: UTF-8+names
• Next by thread: RE: UTF-8+names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread