Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
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/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format