[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML Blueberry
- From: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:22:41 -0400
Peter Flynn wrote:
> I see no justification for making a change to line-ends merely
> to accommodate legacy operating systems.
Those "legacy" systems contain a huge amount of well-maintained
data, as someone else (Tim Bray?) pointed out. Anyway, the
only systems that are not "legacy" are the ones still being
designed: Fred Brooks told us 25+ years ago that an implemented
system is an obsolete system.
> The time to speak up
> on this was four years ago.
A fine attitude to bug-fixing, indeed.
> If IBM is unwilling to bring its
> own systems into the 21st century, it cannot expect the rest of
> the world to repunch their cards for them.
This is sheer prejudice, based on obsolete stereotypes.
> 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?
That declaration is not normative.
> 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).
The reason for introducing a new version of XML (or a new
mark of some sort, anyhow) is to protect old parsers. Allowing
NEL and the Unicode 3.1 name characters changes the definition
of what is a well-formed entity, thus going beyond what an
erratum can fix.
> Or is there something worse going on here?
There is / one art || John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein