Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion wrote:
> Tim's approach is taking a real, widespread problem
> and offering a clean, layered solution -- essentially
> a character encoding preprocessor -- rather than
> changing XML itself.
Exactly. It's a syntax macro (just like namespaces). So the
*problem* of resolving entities hasn't gone away, specifically that
problem is one of getting your entities from one place to another
and back again. Unless of course we all upgrade to use +names.
I'd love to know what SOAP-oriented folks think about it.
> Actually, a similar idea came up at the Binary Infoset
> workshop, to leverage/exploit the fact that the XML
> spec allows an open-ended set of encodings. This
> allows experimentation WITHOUT "corrupting" the core
> spec with support for local languages, stuff of
> interest mainly to mainframes, or more efficiently
> transmittable and/or lexable serializations.
It also potentially hurts interop - there are costs and benefits to
be weighed up.
> IMHO, it extends the Unicode encoding layer upwards to
> remove a wart in XML, not vice-versa.
I disgree :) It sems to be solving a wart (or a gap in the market)
of Unicode transformations, not XML. Otherwise why would it be
useful outside XML?
> Anyway, I think this is a great idea, and I
> congratulate Tim for working it out and moving it
I like it at first glance, but the current draft is too vague. I
suspect the impact of this encoding is more than Tim is giving
credit for - so I'm not buying arguments from idiotic simplicity
I'd like to:
o see the encoding name changed to "UTF-8+entities", the current
name is rather vague.
o see examples of escaped whitespace.
o know whether <wóoops/> is a legal element name in this
o hear a rationale, other than use outside XML, for choosing a new
encoding to solve this problem, ie why not xml:entities="yes" or
some other approach?
o know whether the current MathML/HTML4 sets are sufficient; ie
are we going to need to reversion this in couple of years to cater
o like elharo and Alessandro, I'm unconvinced about treatment of
&, specifically, that it isn't being overloaded in some
clever/sneaky way. Indeed, I'll claim that & /is/ being overloaded
in some clever/sneaky until the next draft shows me otherwise.
Bill de hÓra