[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Well file (3.37) under Cygwin says
foo.xml: XML document text
so it must just be good old XML, right? What's the big problem here? %^}
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@rbii.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:39 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX,
Perl, Python, etc ?
On Friday 21 December 2001 09:13 am, Champion, Mike wrote:
> Right. That's why these various "death of text" and "can't edit with a
text
> editor" and "breaking Unix" threads mystify me: XML 1.0 opened the door to
> all these problems. If folks have gotten by just fine using their ASCII
> tools with XML 1.0, that's not likely to change with 1.1. OK, so you
COULD
> get an XML 1.1 (as drafted) document with NELs rather than LFs or various
> control characters in it that may confuse vi or sed or more. I can't
> imagine that these tools handle UTF-16 gracefully, so people who are
> getting by with ASCII tools are getting by because of CONVENTIONS, not
> STANDARDS.
True enough. The case you're arguing for though is that all text processing
tools need to change. In the long run, you may be right.
FWIW. let's stop making this a theoretical thing. I've attached a file that
I
think should be a well-formed XML 1.1 document, assuming ESC and other
control characters are allowed, encoded in US-ASCII (or UTF-8). Play with it
a bit, and tell me what you think. Try doing a "cat foo.xml" on a Unix box,
or "more foo.xml". Open it in emacs, and save it.
|
