[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Blueberry/Unicode/XML
It seems like this problem is worth solving, and worth solving in a way that means we don't have to deal with compatibility issues every few years. On 09 Jul 2001 21:33:12 -0700, Tim Bray wrote: > Realistically, there are 3 options: > > 1. Leave it the way it is. > 2. Do Blueberry and then repeat the process for Unicode 3.2 > and 4.0 and so on every couple of years forever. > 3. Bite the bullet, write the rules in terms of Unicode > metadata and go to a pure use-by-reference architecture, > probably adding a syntactic signal to reference the > Unicode version number. I'd add a fourth option [1] that separates the character list for XML from XML 1.0 itself. The W3C could still manage the list - declawing both issues of trust among consortia and further changes to XML 1.0 itself. Done with a URI, it might also allow developers to take control of the character list when it's worth the effort to them. Finally, it would encourage developers to build parsers which rely on external tables written in a common format. That would ease a lot of future interoperability issues and allow developers to use ordinary XML tools (XSLT, SAX etc.) to convert documents from documents which used one list of character types to another. Is it reinventing the SGML declaration? In a really limited way, focused squarely on Unicode. The SGML declaration includes a lot of items we don't need. [1] - http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200106/msg00714.html
|
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
|