[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> Eric van der Vlist scripsit:
>
>
>>I agree: there is a much better and simpler reason to forbid binary
>>content from XML documents ;=) ...
>>
>
> This "binary content in XML documents" is a complete red herring from
> the XML 1.1 viewpoint. XML is a textual standard, and XML 1.1 no
> less so. The question is about allowing the unusual, but legitimate,
> *characters* U+0000 through U+001F.
Sure, but I was not answering to the original question "from the XML 1.1
viewpoint" but to a mail entitled "Binary content" and the discussion
seemed to have shifted from allowing Unicode characters U+0000 through
U+001F to the more challenging question of allowing arbitrary binary
content.
>>IMO, none of them, but rather a fundamental design decision: a XML
>>entity is a Unicode text (eventually using another encoding) and not a
>>stream of bytes.
>>
>>This should be a sufficient reason to close the debate IMO!
>>
>
> Not at all.
Do you mean you want to reopen the debate about XML being a text or a
binary format ;=) ?
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
