Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:

> >The alternative is to use two passes or to buffer up all the output,
> >either of which may be prohibitive.
> >
> 
> I think most of the time it wouldn't be. I went to MacWorld a couple
> of days ago. 512MB DIMMs were running $159. 80 gigabyte hard drives were
> $379. Memory and space is cheap, cheap, cheap.

But will they fit in your PDOC (Portable Device Of Choice)?

> Under my proposal a Blueberry declaration is legal if and only
> if one or more Blueberry characters is used in an XML name somewhere in
> the document. Thus adding a single processing instruction whose target
> contained a Blueberry character either before or after the root element
> would make the document Blueberry legal. 

Well, I certainly have no problem with this idea.  But do you think
it would achieve the purposes that you want it to achieve?  Wouldn't
it become the Received Wisdom that the way to write an XML
document was something like:

	<?xml version="blueberry" encoding="utf-8"?>
	<?{insert Deseret char here}?>

with all the bad knock-on effects you expect with unconstrained
Blueberry?

Of course, *typing* Deseret characters is still difficult, but
*generating* them isn't.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter