[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML Blueberry

• From: Peter Flynn <peter@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:38:59 +0100

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, you wrote:
> The W3C XML Core Working Group has posted the first public draft of XML
> Blueberry Requirements:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xml-blueberry-req-20010620
> 
> This is a proposal for a new BACKWARDS INCOMPATIBLE version of XML. 
> The specific goal is to address some shortcomings of the XML 1.0 
> character model relative to Unicode 3.1, as well as throwing a sop to 
> IBM.

Elliotte voices some valid concerns. 

I see no justification for making a change to line-ends merely
to accommodate legacy operating systems. The time to speak up
on this was four years ago. If IBM is unwilling to bring its
own systems into the 21st century, it cannot expect the rest of
the world to repunch their cards for them.

Can someone explain why the problems of accommodating the
enlarged set of code points in U3.x cannot be solved by moving
the fence in the SGML Declaration for XML?  A Technical
Corrigendum to the 1.0 Spec could make clear that we should have
worded it so that the permitted characters of XML are those
non-control characters defined in Ux.y at any point in time
(modulo whatever explicit exclusions). Or is there something
worse going on here?

///Peter
-- 
Bury me face down, "9" edge first.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • XML Blueberry
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• Next by Date: Re: XML Directory structure
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Blueberry
• Next by thread: Re: XML Blueberry
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread