OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Unicode and XML (was Re: [xml-dev] Remembering the origina

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Gavin Thomas Nicol scripsit:

> I think XML 1.0 did very well overall... I actually dislike the approach XML 
> 1.1 is taking mostly because I think it's a good thing to have a 
> self-contained specification, especially a cornerstone spec like XML. This is 
> in stark contrast to the spider web of specs we're seeing nowadays.

Say what?  XML 1.0 makes normative reference to Unicode and ISO 10646
already.  XML 1.1 only adds Charmod (and XML 1.0) to the normatie
references.  The table in Appendix B is gone, but only because all the
work is now being done by production 4 (and new 4a), it being short
enough not to require reference to an Appendix.

The *intent* behind XML 1.1 is in fact less bound to the Unicode tables
than XML 1.0's was.

John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There
are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language
that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
        --_The Hobbit_


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS