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

Re: XML Blueberry

  • From: Vincent-Olivier Arsenault <vincent@n...>
  • To: xml-dev@l...
  • Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:40:10 -0400

Re: XML Blueberry
At 02:48 PM 6/21/01, you wrote:
>On 21 Jun 2001 13:26:31 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > I am not sure what "backwards incompatible" is supposed to mean
> > in this context.  Old parsers won't be able to read Blueberry
> > documents, that's true.  But nobody needs to write a Blueberry
> > document unless they wish to exploit Blueberry features.  And
> > upgrading parsers to Blueberry is intentionally trivial: it's basically
> > about expanding a few tables.
>
>It almost feels to me like those tables should be the responsibility of
>the Unicode folks (or some similarly lucky but separate intermediary
>with time on its hands) to maintain, and that some means of
>incorporating them by reference might have avoided this entire
>discussion.
>
>I guess that would make the layering of XML 1.0 on top of Unicode more
>explicit.


Absolutely!!!

This revision is indeed NECESSARY as (I think) XML should have a greater 
(if not complete) independence from any encoding specification and delegate 
it (all) to UNICODE. Thus, the key requirement to me would be (quoting from 
the June 20 WD requirement list) : "The working group shall consider the 
issue of future updates to Unicode."

As for the "they can write latin markup anyways" argument, I don't see how 
we could EVER discriminate ANY cultural particularity (even if they SEEM 
obsure to us or to so-called "experts", lets not repeat the rfc822 mistake) 
by denying to its adherents their ability to create markup in the way they 
want. Isn't it just as imposing your own line-ending method except on a 
cultural level? That is SOOO american.( Sorry, I had to say it ;-) )

The backward-compatibility argument just doesn't hold : I'd be curious to 
see how (or if) Java parsers (for instance) enforce the restricions to 
UNICODE as specified in the XML spec. Aren't they just relying on the Java 
platform to handle encoding? Even if they are not, they should, that kind 
of code redundancy would just be the perfect symptom to the overspecified XML.

Couldn't that also fix the IBM issue?

v


PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.