[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> 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.
Why would someone want to use XML if they need to transmit illegal
characters? There are usually two cases -- one is where the illegal
characters are insignificant, in which case they can be stripped and the
output is well-formed XML. The other case is where the illegal
characters *are* significant, and must be preserved for round-trip. But
if someone wants to round-trip characters that are clearly not permitted
by any XML processor in the world, why use XML? That's like getting mad
because a car won't float.
> 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.
But that is exactly the point: even if we started again from scratch,
there exists a subset of characters that will end up being illegal.
There will also exist a certain population of users who disagree with
each illegal character choice. There will additionally be a certain
population of implementers who disagree with the *permissiveness* of the
characters, since it makes their lives difficult, and they have to
handle characters in a way that is unnatural (NEL for Unix people, for
example).
So my point is that the set of illegal characters will always be an
arbitrary value-judgment that tries to balance between implementers and
users. I do not think it is an objective "there is one right answer"
situation.
|
