Re: The Blueberry Debates...

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Williams, David wrote:

 > I apologize for any of my ignorance here...  but I have one
 > question, and one idea..
 >
 > Question(s)- ((This is really for those people who feel like it,
 > indeed, does...)) How exactly does "Blueberry" break the XML 1.0
 > specification?  (specifics... what would break, what would work
 > poorly...)

It extends *names* (element names, attribute names, entity names,
ids, ...).  There is no effect on character data.  It also allows
IBM mainframes to use their idea of plain text (NEL-terminated
lines) without having to translate to CR or LF or CRLF-terminated
lines.

It is already possible to write Burmese text with HTML markup.
What you cannot do is to devise a markup vocabulary using Burmese
terminology, unless you transliterate it to Latin or some other
Unicode-2.0-supported script.

 > I already have a feeling I know the reply to this, but couldn't an
 > XML-Blueberry document once written in ancient hieroglyphs be
 > pre-processed into something that XML 1.0 parsers/processors could
 > understand machine-wise, but that might not be as readily
 > understandable by humans?

Sure.  You just replace the names with a verbose but unique
transliteration.

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein