Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "John Cowan" <email@example.com>
> Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> > A control character may be a character or an embedded signal (i.e. a PI)
> > but it is certainly not an element.
> Of course not. But it may be *represented* by an element.
What is the difference between being represented by an element and being
> > 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.
No, &BEL; would have definite replacement text: the Unicode
character of that number. It would just have particular serialization
rules, as do many characters.
For a rather more worked-out proposal for using elements to represent
arbitrary characters, see my conference paper "Elements for Non-Unicode
Characters in XML" at
(which was presented as part of a report on my interests at Academia Sinica
along with DrLove, as proposal for using RDF to describe Document Resources