[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Blueberry/Unicode/XML
> > > > 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 don't find any of these options very appealing. > > Another bullet one could bite is to no longer make checking of name > characters (beyond what is needed to prevent ambiguity) a part of > well-formedness. Whilst it's nice to have some sanity checking of names, > using inappropriate characters in names doesn't cause problems for further > processing layers to the same extent as other things that are part of > well-formedness do, such as unbalanced tags or duplicate attributes. > > At least I think one should consider easing draconian error > handling for bad > name characters to reduce deployment problems with option 2. > Perhaps I might paraphrase this by suggesting that we define was is not allowed in a name rather than what is. At the very least the set of characters not allowed in a name are those needed to prevent ambiguity (whitespace,">,)|=*+"). Consider the element: <O'Hara> shrug </O'Hara> Well, all my current documents would remain well-formed so I don't see how allowing this would adversely affect me. I could always refuse to read such new fangled documents just as I refuse to read HTML email :-) -Jonathan
|
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
|