[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: Tim Bray <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:59:38 -0700
xml-dev has no authority and is not part of any formal
process, but if it were a W3C WG and I'd been the chair,
at this point I would assert that I hear something like
convergence going on.
a. Seems like history's on the side of people who want to
get the Unicode X where X>2 stuff into XML NAMEs one way
b. Seems like almost nobody is willing to go to bat
very hard for NEL.
There are two good ideas for how (a) might be
- John Cowan has proposed a sensible-looking method for
writing the XML NAME rules by reference to Unicode
metadata and thus achieving decoupling from any
particular version of Unicode. I didn't see anyone
raising problems with Johnn's approach, and lord
knows there are people here who are qualified to
spot 'em if they're there. Of course to use
this fully, your Blueberry declaration would have to
specify which version of Unicode it belonged to.
[hmm... <foo xml:unicode="3.1">...</foo>?]
- James Clark proposed massively fewer restrictions
on the composition of names. On the other hand,
there were some pretty strong arguments against this.
As for (b), unless someone is willing to make case
for opening up deployed systems to pretty massive
breakage in order to simplify the lives of a small
and shrinking piece of the software development
world... as I said, if this were a WG and I were
chair I'd suggest an evident lack of consensus in
favor of this change. -Tim