[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XML Blueberry
At 11:21 AM -0400 6/21/01, Mike.Champion@S... wrote: This is an area that I know even less about, but I have been burned repeatedly by taking the same position as Elliot Rusty Harold does. As I understand it, the principal reason that people care about the characters that are not in Unicode 2.0 is that they are widely used in proper names, and people (and companies) *care* if they are constrained against using their names in electronic communication. I don't disagree that as a practical matter the people affected might well be content with the fact that this only affects their ability to define names (of elements and attributes) not actual text values. When's the last time you saw a proper name used as a tag name or attribute name? It's just not an important enough use-case to justify obsoleting all existing XML software and systems. Nevertheless, as with line endings, why not bite the bullet now and make XML Unicode 3.0-friendly and get on with life? It's one of those issues that will require more energy to argue about than to fix, I suspect. Because it doesn't stop here. We can do Unicode 3.1 today. How about Unicode 3.2 next year? And Unicode 4.0 a few years down the line? And whatever comes after that? Are we going to keep revving XML to support ever-more obscure, less-used characters? As to energy, remember that if this proposal goes through every XML parser vendor has to rewrite their software to support it. A lot of software has to be rewritten as well. I know JDOM would. Probably some schema validators as well. Certainly the test suites will need to be rewritten. And what about all the other specs that depend on XML here? How many of them need to be rewritten too? There's a larger issue here. XML 1.0 is a W3C "Recommendation", not an international standard. It was well-grounded in concrete SGML experience, and has proven remarkably useful in practice. We can greatly respect the effort and knowledge that went into it without believing that its authors were omniscient. I personally don't care one way or the other about any of the new "Blueberry" requirements, but let's be utterly pragmatic about whether "fixing" XML, or forcing various constituencies that were not considered by the authors of XML 1.0 to adapt to it, is better for everyone in the long run. Internationalization was a major focus of XML 1.0. Unlike many concurrent projects (Java, Oracle) the people who designed XML actually understood Unicode. They were able to allow XML the flexibility to accommodate new characters as they were defined. But for very good reasons, these potential new characters could not be allowed in element names as opposed to text content. We are now at a point where it would be technically possible to add some (not all) of these new characters to XML names, but only at the cost of breaking compatibility. That's too high a price to pay. -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999) | | http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
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
|