[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>>The problem is that XML is *text*. It is made from *characters*, and
>>arbitrary binary strings have no place in it. Once you change that, you
>>have essentially ruined XML as a textual markup language.
>>
>
> This argument seems to apply equally against Base64 encoding as it does
> against control characters.
No, since a binary content encoded as Base64 is a text.
>
> I think of XML not as a textual markup language, but rather as a layer over
> which markup languages can be defined. Why is it the job of XML to prevent
> characters that are not appropriate for some classes of markup languages?
IMO, it's not a matter of "preventing characters that are not appropriate
for some classes of markup languages", it's a matter of using the abstract
notion of characters defined by Unicode instead of using their physical
representation (bytes).
The rec is pretty clear on this point:
"Parsed data is made up of characters, some of which form character
data, and some of which form markup." and also "[Definition: A parsed
entity contains text, a sequence of characters, which may represent
markup or character data.] [Definition: A character is an atomic unit of
text as specified by ISO/IEC 10646 [ISO/IEC 10646] (see also [ISO/IEC
10646-2000]).
"
Eric
--
Rendez-vous a Paris pour les Electronic Business Days 2002.
http://www.edifrance.org/ebd/index.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
