[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> For people interested in why the C1 characters (80-9F) should
> be disallowed
> in XML (i.e. XML 2.0) check out
> "A Rational Approach to XML Robustness Requirements"
> http://www.topologi.com/public/XML_Naming_Rules.html
>
> This is an issue where robustness requirements meets head on
> with the inclinations of the people who want to dumb XML down
> into a language for serializing databases.
I don't want to dumb XML down. But we do sometimes need to store data (e.g.
WebDAV property values) which can potentially contain characters that are
not permitted in XML. In fact, it's very unlikely that a WebDAV property
value will contain such a character, but the software still needs to allow
for the possibility.
I don't personally see any good reason why C0 (and C1) characters shouldn't
be permitted XML characters, with the restriction that they must be written
as character references. That wouldn't hurt the robustness arguments. I
guess the C lobby is sufficiently entrenched that we'll never allow �,
but apart from that I don't really see the need for restrictions.
Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@ntlworld.com
work: Michael.Kay@softwareag.com
|
