[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Unicode and XML (was Re: Remembering the origina
On Sunday 16 February 2003 07:30 pm, John Cowan wrote: > Gavin Thomas Nicol scripsit: > > I think XML 1.0 did very well overall... I actually dislike the approach > > XML 1.1 is taking mostly because I think it's a good thing to have a > > self-contained specification, especially a cornerstone spec like XML. > > This is in stark contrast to the spider web of specs we're seeing > > nowadays. > > Say what? XML 1.0 makes normative reference to Unicode and ISO 10646 > already. XML 1.1 only adds Charmod (and XML 1.0) to the normatie > references. The table in Appendix B is gone, but only because all the > work is now being done by production 4 (and new 4a), it being short > enough not to require reference to an Appendix. > > The *intent* behind XML 1.1 is in fact less bound to the Unicode tables > than XML 1.0's was. Sorry, my message was unclear. The "spider web of specs" is not referring to XML 1.1, but all the *other* specs, like XPath 2.0. In as far as my dislike of XML 1.1 approach... I appreciate the intent, but I think the effect might well be different from what is intended. I could be wrong, of course.
|
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
|