[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
- From: Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:35:58 +0800
From: "John Cowan" <email@example.com>
> > 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.
I certainly do. It goes against the fundamental principle of labelling.
FrameMaker's MIF used a similar system to this, in a way: for language you
type the country name in the native characters (e.g. idographic NI-HON for
Japan) and then the MIF reader will know which encoding is being used (i.e.,
shift JIS or EUC I suppose) because it knows the two code sequences.
But we didn't go that way in XML: instead, after the most minimal reliance
on signatures (for determining code-point size and ASCII/EBCDIC family) it
uses explicit labelling in text: markup.
The advantage of this is that there is as much chance as possible that the
document's character set can be known by using a standard hex dump, and
usually using the system's standard text editor or "type" or "more"
I think it would be a great step backwards to have any system based on
signatures, when we have managed to reduce their use to the minimum
currently. Markup (i.e. ASCII declarations) is better.