[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
>> Fair enough, but if you remove all the unicode-character apparatus
>> from XML 1.0 you probably cut that in half. Which is one of the only
>> important *technical* differences between XML and SGML - SGML was
>> really underspecified on what a "character" was. At the end of the
>> day XML's main technical contribution may turn out to have been that
>> it dragged Unicode into the mainstream.
>
> Stupid question: Why couldn't XML incorporate Unicode by reference
> rather than spending half of the spec defining the "unicode-character
> apparatus"?
Well, XML1.1 is moving in that direction. Even given that, I think that
XML 1.0's approach, with a big table right in the spec saying "here are
the legal characters", was probably correct; I (and I'm sure many other
programmers) ran a perl script over the spec to extract the char parsing
tables. -Tim
|
