Re: XML Blueberry

[Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>]

At 10:38 PM +0100 6/21/01, Peter Flynn wrote:


>Can someone explain why the problems of accommodating the
>enlarged set of code points in U3.x cannot be solved by moving
>the fence in the SGML Declaration for XML?  A Technical
>Corrigendum to the 1.0 Spec could make clear that we should have
>worded it so that the permitted characters of XML are those
>non-control characters defined in Ux.y at any point in time
>(modulo whatever explicit exclusions). Or is there something
>worse going on here?
>

Because XML parsers don't pay a whit of attention to SGML or SGML 
declarations. They're defined in terms of the XML spec purely. In 
particular they're part of the BNF grammar which lists each and every 
character that is allowed by its Unicode code point.

Also, it's a little more complicated because you need to address 
different classes of characters: name, name start, and general text. 
You need to figure out which characters belong in which groups, 
though the Unicode character classes do give us a big head start 
here. All the characters in question are already allowed in general 
text. We're only arguing about name and name start characters.
-- 

+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
|                  The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999)                   |
|              http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/               |
|   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/   |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/     |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+