• From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:19:11 -0800

Jonathan Robie wrote:

> Agreed, but well-defined Unicode characters for which *someone* has a 
> font are very good for the people who use that data, even if *you* don't 
> have a font for it.
>

1. Please do remember we're talking only about name characters, not the 
text content of a document. The XML 1.1 proponents kept confusing this 
issue the last time around too.

2. These characters are only a good idea if the documents are only 
exchanged among speakers who all share the alphabet/syllabary/etc. and 
the necessary fonts.

3. The real issue is undefined Unicode characters that this proposal 
allows, not well-defined characters at all.

4. The other issue is well-defined characters that are not wise for use 
in XML names, such as easily confusable characters, and various 
punctuation marks and spacing characters.

> I'm guessing you didn't mean that to say what I just understood it to 
> say. Surely you don't object to me putting Greek in a file even if you 
> personally can't read it.

Actually, I personally can read it. :-)


-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@m...
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>

• 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...>
  • 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...>