Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "David Carlisle" <email@example.com>
> > On the other hand, part of the point of the ISO entities is that they
> > are intentionally flexible, so that people can choose the best possible
> > mappings from characters that actually have counterparts in fonts.
> > It might have seemed perverse to them to add characters intended
> > to be ambiguous. :-)
> Well yes that's the point of SDATA entities but that flexibility was
> intentionally dropped from XML, which is probably OK in most common
> cases, but that leaves the problem of what to do about legacy SGML to
> XML conversions.
The flexibility to declare different mappings as appropriate was not
dropped by XML. The thing that was dropped with SDATA entities
is the ability to flag that there are characters that a human will have
to resolve. Not the same thing.
> I agree with most of your outline for coming up with a
> unified set, and I'm happy to help with that in any way, I just think
> that it should finally be a W3C XML activity recommendation, otherwise
> it is just another incompatible set.
Oh, sure, it will only be valuable if people can agree to it. That is why,
from the ISO side at least, I think the first thing is to scope the problem and
publically raise different possible approaches. You and Norm have already
done an enormous amount of work in reconciling your mappings:
for the lion's share of entities both your mappings agree and are