[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Well-formed Blueberry
- From: Joel Rees <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:51:20 +0900
Elliotte Rusty Harold suggested:
> I still haven't been convinced of the need for Blueberry,
> but I do want to propose something in the event this goes
> I think there's a way to limit the damage this does to the
> existing infrastructure. Whatever the eventual identifier is
> chosen for Blueberry (version="1.1", unicode="3.1", etc.)
> I think it should be a *fatal error* to use this identifier in
> a document that does not actually use any of the newly
> introduced characters in an XML name somewhere.
> In other words, if a document can be an XML 1.0 document,
> it must be an XML 1.0 document.
> This would prevent the vast majority of users who are never
> going to use or even think about Khmer, Amharic, the extra
> Japanese characters, etc. from pointlessly generating
> incompatible documents just because "it's the latest version."
How do you propose to do this without burdening parsers with a huge wall
And why? Is the Blueberry proposal liable to make a directional branch in
the development of XML that you think is undesirable, or perhaps too early?
programmer -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To be a tree supporting all information,
giving root to the chaos
and branches to the trivia,
information breathing anew --
This is the aim of Yggdrasill.
============================XML as Best Solution===
Media Fusion Co. ,Ltd. $B3t<02qhttp://www.mediafusion.co.jp