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

Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome fr

• To: Uche Ogbuji <Uche.Ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
• From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:47:08 -0500
• Cc: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>, XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1107790549.4527.127.camel@borgia>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0501280904130.20504-100000@s...> <200502032213.56841.david.lyon@c...> <4202A983.6030803@z...> <4202C65B.7000207@o...> <42038131.8080701@m...> <4204023D.8000401@o...> <42042648.3020504@m...> <e3a5cb2c05020419595e515059@m...> <1107704852.4527.116.camel@borgia> <e3a5cb2c05020609516779e7d6@m...> <6fa681b1050206105274c18b2b@m...> <420752DF.8090708@m...> <1107790549.4527.127.camel@borgia>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217

Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> I know most people on this list know this, but because the above is a
> good reference post, I wanted to clarify that using numerical characters
> references does not solve #3.
> 

I know. My point was meant to be, though perhaps it could have been said 
better, that if you're iterating through a chunk of text and inspecting 
each character, it's easy to spot the ones that are completely illegal 
and throw an exception or take other corrective action. However, if you 
just take a string and wrap it in <![CDATA[ and ]]>, then you'll miss 
such possible illegal characters.

Depending on the language there may also be a point 4: mismatched 
surrogate characters and non-characters. These are allowed in Java 
strings, but not in XML data.

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@m...
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim

• References:
  • xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • How simple is simple enough? - was Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
  • Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" myth come from?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <Uche.Ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" myth come from?
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
  • Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" myth come from?
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
  • Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <Uche.Ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Where does the "nothing left but toolkits" mythcome from?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread