Re: Gag me with a blunt …

[Rob Lugt <roblugt@elcel.com>]

I can understand IBM wanting to change XML to make things work on OS390 and
I can understand many XML developers wanting to keep things the way they
are.

What I don't understand is if NELs and CRs mean the same thing, why do they
have different Unicode representations?
If they are the same thing then I would tentatively suggest that Unicode is
at fault.  Then the question would be: should Unicode be fixed or should XML
be required to accommodate Unicode's short-comings?

Rob Lugt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Malaika" <malaika@us.ibm.com>
To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@allette.com.au>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: Gag me with a blunt &#x85;


>
>
> > In other words, are NEL like TABs: archaisms
> > that don't fit well with XML (or SGML in the
> > absense of short-references).
>
> [NEL] is a line ending.  XML makes provision for line endings.
> [NEL]s for OS390 are like [CR]s for Apple Macintosh.
>
> Susan Malaika
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@lists.xml.org
>
>