• From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• To: "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@r...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:27:03 +0000

On 18/02/2008, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...> wrote:
> Why do all this work? A character is a character is a character, except
> for certain well known ranges. The more we try to interpret the more
> obscure characters, the more trouble we get into.
>
> Besides, some of the musical symbols might make perfect sense as tag
> names. Suppose I want to show all the occurrences of a given musical
> symbol in a score, I could use that symbol as the name of an element,
> and use child elements to contain each position.

I agree, but personally I would like the characters used to appear on
my keyboard.  I would much rather someone used the name of the symbol
rather than the symbol itself, if only to make processing it easier.

For example  - <♫>/<♪> would you expect everyone that processes it to
look at the underlying bytes to work out exactly what character it is,
then use that character or a character ref in the xpath or match
pattern.

Much better to use <beamed-eighth>/<eighth> isn't it?

I would say allow any character in the XML, but keep name characters
reseved to those on a keyboard.


-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Jim Melton <jim.melton@a...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Tony Graham <Tony.Graham@M...>

• References:
  • Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>