Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Pete Cordell wrote: > I'm afraid I'm not seeing the big interoperability problem here. At > the dumb computer level all these characters are just patterns of > bits. It's only us smart users that give these bit patterns the > semantics to be able to tell a letter from a number etc. I think most implementers use the Unicode support in their programming languages or standard Unicode libraries for parsing Unicode, because it's too much work to roll your own. It's odd to tell someone who relies on newer versions of Unicode that although the characters of their language work fine on their computer and can be displayed in their word process, we require XML parsers to check each character to ensure that they do not support these characters. And in my limited testing, XML parsers do seem to support at least some of these characters, whether or not they say they do ;-> It's important to distinguish characters used as operators in languages like XPath and XQuery from name characters, but beyond that, it's easiest to trust your underlying Unicode implementation. Jonathan
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
