[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
> > Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>
> >>The problem seems to be that this TEXT doesn't enter into the definition
> >>of text made in XML 1.0, but it should be possible to represent it
> >>differently using what we have at hand.
> >>
> >
> > Isn't that what character references are for? You already need to escape
> > characters such as single and/or double quotes, < & etc, so
adding a
> > few numbers to a case statement doesn't seem to be a huge deal.
>
>
> Not really. The character references are equivalent to the characters
> which they replace and thus it seems difficult to use them to replace
> characters which are forbidden...
>
Hmmph... well I don't profess to understand much of this character stuff,
but it seemed to me logical that character refs would be a good way to
escape characters not otherwise allowed in text ... I'm sure there is a good
reason why this isn't allowed -- I mean it does let me stuff an < into an
attribute, so what is the huge difference between that and � ? Oh well,
I never should have piped in on this thread anyways...
Jonathan
|
