[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Interoperability [long]
<snip/> > Every parser I've ever seen supports 8859-1. Is there a > single counterexample? But <snicker> that doesn't help you > though, because I can always put € (Euro) in my 8859-1 > text. BTW Sean, how do you do Euros? SGML had SDATA > entities, but they had poor interoperability and flaky > product support. > > Here's one area where SGML (kind of) wins. You could in > theory limit the charset to 8859-1 in the SGML declaration. > Mind you, I never heard of anyone ever doing this on a > production basis... toolset problems? > > I guess the modern schema datatypes kind of allow you > to do this via the regexp tools? Yes, If I understand the datatype spec correctly you can do either: <xs:simpleType name="ISO8859_1"> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> <xs:pattern value="\p{BasicLatin}+"/> <xs:pattern value="\p{Latin-1Supplement}+"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> or <xs:simpleType name="ISO8859_1"> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> <xs:pattern value="[�-�FF]+"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> for one or more characters in ISO8859-1. See [1] Cheers, /Eddie [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#regexs > > > >Oh, BTW, Opera and lots of other tools out there that > >call themselves XML compliant, don't do Unicode. Worse, they > >silently don't do Unicode. You find these things out > >the hard way. > > Then they're NOT XML TOOLS and this is NOT XML's FAULT. > BTW, the browsers actually do a pretty good job in my > experience. Hey Sean, let's name some names and put > some pressure on the vendors. > > >Call me a fuddy-duddy but simple stuff like this > >was simpler with the *complex* SGML standard > >than it is with the *simple* XML standard. > > I'll certainly buy into the premise that SGML tools > tend to be heavily authoring-focused. One reason is > that in large part, all that ever happened with SGML > was you authored it and then you printed it. The great > virtue was you could still print it 10 years later... > try that with MS Office. > > >To return to the original spark of this, I believe that a significant > >part of the problem is that XML's definition is just syntax > >and compliance with the syntax doesn't tell you a lot > >when it comes to tying components together into complete > >systems. > > You've pointed useful fingers at some gaps in our tool > repertoire, particularly in the authoring-support and > content-management spaces. It's not obvious to me that > a focus on structure rather than syntax would really > be that important in fixing these problems. > > And I stand by my claim, based only on my personal > experience, that in heterogeneous distributed environments, > it's easier to agree on syntax than on data structures. > And way more robust. Clearly there are those who have > different experiences. -Tim > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
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
|