[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML Blueberry
Peter Flynn wrote: > I see no justification for making a change to line-ends merely > to accommodate legacy operating systems. Those "legacy" systems contain a huge amount of well-maintained data, as someone else (Tim Bray?) pointed out. Anyway, the only systems that are not "legacy" are the ones still being designed: Fred Brooks told us 25+ years ago that an implemented system is an obsolete system. > The time to speak up > on this was four years ago. A fine attitude to bug-fixing, indeed. > 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. This is sheer prejudice, based on obsolete stereotypes. > 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? That declaration is not normative. > 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). The reason for introducing a new version of XML (or a new mark of some sort, anyhow) is to protect old parsers. Allowing NEL and the Unicode 3.1 name characters changes the definition of what is a well-formed entity, thus going beyond what an erratum can fix. > Or is there something worse going on here? No. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
|
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
|