Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 9:03 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [xml-dev] Suggestion for an alternative XML 1.1
> Actually, I take the reverse idea: we pull out
> character issues, to make the a lightweight version of XML.
Well, I'm sympathetic - I like the *concept* that XML 1.1 will get the
W3C out of the business of defining semantics for character codes.
Good design (and management) practice suggests delegating decisions about
details to the experts, and it would seem that the Unicode folks are the
> I suggest something along these lines:
> 1) It is called XML 1.1, if needed.
That is, if there exist well-formed XML 1.1 documents that are not WF XML
Makes sense to me.
> 2) It converts NEL on input to #A.
OK, that's what the Unicode technical report on the wretched topic of
linefeeds says to do. But is that only in an EBCDIC encoding? ISO Latin 1
ASCII define other semantics for #85.
> ** Why am I proposing simplification, when I am often on the
> ultra-conservative side? Well, it is simplification of parsing techniques
> that brings outsomething that was designed into XML 1.0: that whitespace
> delimiters are all that really is needed for parsing.
Hmm, I've been wondering why I'm sympathetic to XML 1.1 and NEL and the new
name character rules when I'm usually on the side of the howling rabble of
simpletons. I think it's the same reason Rick offers: it's simplifcation of
parsing that lets XML be XML and Unicode be Unicode. The result is simpler,
faster, but still richer ... a pretty concise definition of "elegant."
> We are not changing the language, just refactoring where checks
> should occur in a way that better suits high-volume processing and
> small devices.
Very well put. Again, I very much like this direction.