[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Blueberry Debates...
- From: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Williams, David" <DAVID.WILLIAMS@ca.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:30:26 -0400
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
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
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
> 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
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