RE: XML Blueberry

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Which not surprisingly makes this appear 
to be a problem in which the parent language 
capabilities are the solution.

Why not tell IBM to use SGML if they 
need more than XML can handle?  I mean, 
didn't they invent it?

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Flynn [mailto:peter@silmaril.ie]


At Friday, 22 June 2001, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.
edu> wrote:

>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.

Whatever.  One is simply a different expression of the other, so 
just change the lists.  My point was that the lists should not
have had these limits placed on them if it was known that Unicode 
would expand.  Just issue a TC as and when Unicode changes,
for implementors to adjust their software by.

///Peter








------------------------------------------------------------------
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