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

+names--

• To: 'XML Dev' <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: +names--
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:05:50 -0700
• In-reply-to: <3F94A9A3.5080902@t...>
• References: <000201c39611$845a59b0$6401a8c0@pcukmka> <3F94A9A3.5080902@t...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

There's been a lot of useful discussion, thanks.  I've decided I'm not 
going to rev the spec again.  I believe it has been demonstrated that it 
is technically feasible to provide named characters without touching XML 
by using an alternative encoding of Unicode.  Many good technical points 
have been made but none came close to "it can't be done."  This leaves 
the question of whether it *should* be done.  At this point the 
head-count in the "contra" column is larger than in the "pro" column, 
among those who speak up at least.

Honestly, I'm not sure which column I'm in.

I am *quite* sure that there is no realistic prospect of adding entity 
declaration to any of the modern schema facilities, or of somehow 
shoehorning it into XML itself in a DTD-less way.

If there is an sudden groundswell of opinion from some substantial group 
of people saying "we need this" AND some indication from the 
implementors' camp that they're apt to actually implement it, I'd be 
glad to undertake the (small amount of) work required to polish up the 
draft and incorporate the many cogent technical points that have been 
raised.
-- 
Cheers, Tim Bray (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: +names--
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>

• References:
  • RE: UTF-8+names
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

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