Lists Home |
Date Index |
> and hopefully, as characters in our email
I don't think technology will block that so much as the curmudgeonly people who flame anyone who dares send e-mail in such new-fangled encodings as HTML. If we have had HTML for ten years and people still get scorched for sending it in e-mail, I don't have very high hopes for any further evolution in e-mail encoding capabilities. Even in 2007, when the majority of the Internet communicates in Chinese utf-16, I bet Western Europe will still be arguing about whether or not e-mail should allow XML.
From: Michael Kay [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:58 AM
To: 'Richard Tobin'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Some comments on the 1.1 draft
> XPath and probably some other languages rely on digits not being
> name starts for their tokenizing. Compare a[b] and a.
> I think it would be a mistake to change the name-start status of any
> of the standard ASCII characters.
I have been looking forward to the day when we could break away from the ASCII legacy and start using characters such as
§, ¬, ×, ÷, ∑, and ∩
as operators in our programming languages (and hopefully, as characters in our email). I hope XML 1.1 will not kill these hopes.