[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Well-formed Blueberry
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:37:04 -0400
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> 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
The trouble with this scheme is that it makes generation on the fly,
particularly by separate modules, difficult.
> In other words, if a document can be an XML 1.0 document, it must be
> an XML 1.0 document.
I would certainly agree that it SHOULD, but MUST seems a bit severe.
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