[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rick Jelliffe scripsit:
> A control character may be a character or an embedded signal (i.e. a PI)
> but it is certainly
> not an element.=20
Of course not. But it may be *represented* by an element.
> Furthermore, would we then have pre-control-expansion infosets and
> post-control-expansion
> infosets? (On top of the current pre-|post-[validation|namespace
> processing|Xinclusion|XML Schema
> augmentation] mess)
No. This would be a universally available application convention,
like xml:space and xml:lang, not affecting any infoset.
> It would be better to reserve special characters which (like <) are
> not allowed as literals,
> for all the C0 and C1 controls.
I don't understand this idea. You mean magic entity references?
The trouble is that "<" is not actually magic, except that
it needs no declaration: it has a definite replacement text.
Something like "&BEL;" would have no legal replacement.
> Or to allow numeric character
> references, but that is less
> tidy, because then people would be tempted to mark-up in code points
> rather than in=20
> characters.
Just so.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
