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

Re: version numbers and infosets

• To: jcowan@r...
• Subject: Re: version numbers and infosets
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:43:33 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l..., xml-editor@w...
• In-reply-to: <200207241145.HAA28127@m...> (message fromJohn Cowan on Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:33:11 -0400 (EDT))
• References: <200207241145.HAA28127@m...>

> but extended-ASCII files won't
> work that way: plaintext expects NEL (#x85).

If the file is in extended-ibm-ascii then stick
encoding="extended-ibm-ascii" in the xml declaration and the job is
done.
It only works on parsers that know that encoding but compared to the
cost to everyone of changing the white space rules in XML this is
always going to be preferable.

Even if you do bring out a 1.1 that has NEL in white space anyone who
cares about portability would be better advised to use 1.0 and such an
encoding declaration rather than use 1.1.

I think you should do 1.1 to allow unicode 3+ characters in names, but
changing the white space rules is just gratuitous incompatibility
that helps no one, not even users of NEL.

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• References:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Previous by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by thread: RE: version numbers and infosets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread