[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML Blueberry
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: Vincent-Olivier Arsenault <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:18:55 -0400
Vincent-Olivier Arsenault wrote:
> Well mmm, not enough I'd say : why is there a need for so many character
> classes and DERIVATION rules (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#CharClasses)?
Most of that is descriptional baggage. XML really only needs
to characterize each character as:
legal in names
legal as the first character of a name
not legal at all.
I have a set of rules (which the Core WG has not yet considered)
which do the Right Thing in Unicode terms, while remaining backward
compatible, such that every XML 1.0 document can be changed to a
Blueberry document just by affixing the Blueberry mark.
There is / one art || John Cowan <email@example.com>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein