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 ]

On Sunday 16 February 2003 07:30 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, my message was unclear. The "spider web of specs" is not referring to 
XML 1.1, but all the *other* specs, like XPath 2.0.

In as far as my dislike of XML 1.1 approach... I appreciate the intent, but I 
think the effect might well be different from what is intended. I could be 
wrong, of course.


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

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