• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>
• To: elharo@m...
• Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:59:55 -0500

Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Jonathan Robie 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.
>>
>
>
> Because XML is supposed to be human readable and interoperable. 

Who gets to define the human?

> This means:
>
> 1. Undefined, unprintable characters are very bad.
> 2. Characters that someone doesn't have a font for are bad.

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.

> 3. Unrecognized characters from languages the audience doesn't speak 
> are bad.

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.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@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...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>