[
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_
|
