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

Re: XML and mainframes, yet again

• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 11:32:02 -0800
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4020E276A@u...><p04330100b840f557d186@[192.168.254.4]>

> #x85 is allowed in character data; i.e. in element content and 
> attribute nodes, today, with XML 1.0. All fields from IBM's databases 
> that contain #x85 characters can be included in XML 1.0 documents 
> without translations. The only place you can't put #x85 is in tags 
> between element names and attributes and attributes and other 
> attributes.

And in "ignorable whitespace", and in the invisible whitespace that
exists outside the document body (prologue including DTD, epilogue).


> This has nothing to do with letting data move from IBM databases into 
> XML. It has everything to do with IBM not wanting to update their 
> software to the standards the rest of the world has been using for 
> more than 20 years. ...

What, and forgo the profits of that locked-in customer base?
Surely other opportunities will exist, whereby the rest of the world
can yet be made to dance to IBM's tune ... :)


>     It's a 
> question of attaching the right semantics to the characters. #x85 
> isn't just another character. It's a character with special meaning 
> for many text-processing systems. Unfortunately IBM has chosen to 
> assign different semantics to this character than pretty much 
> everyone else in the world. 

Good point -- I don't think that's been mentioned before.  Of course,
the issue of whether the C1 control characters (U+0080..U+009F)
should ever have been allowed in XML has been raised often.

It's good to remember that one reason they're a problem is that they
have become a storehouse for vendor-proprietary characters, with
as many different meanings as most C0 ones (U+0000..U+001F).
Blessing one vendor's solution may magnify the problems.

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• References:
  • XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Some thoughts about the compatibility between XML 1.0 and XML 1.1
• Next by Date: RE: Displaying Dynamic Text
• Previous by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Next by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread