Lists Home |
Date Index |
I think Simon St.Laurent's reply was the most useful up to now.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 03:36:25PM +0100, Bill de hÓra wrote:
> 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
> for ogham?
Of course they are not sufficient. They cover only a fragment of
characters defined by Unicode.
One possibility might be to use the names from the Unicode code charts,
like &hebrew-letter-yod; or &lao-letter-do;. Think of them as ad-hoc
entities, if you like.
Now, if entities only were allowed to have namespaces assigned to them,
then you could say
and they wouldn't collide with your own entities, as someone already
pointed out. And XML parser could clearly state if they support that
namespace or not. Is there some rationale why only elements and
attributes have namespaces?
Of course, this solution won't save you much time for looking names up
when writing, maybe it helps when reading them in a text. But all in all
I don't see the point in the original draft anyway...
Joern Clausen joern@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
Faculty of Technology http://www.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE/~joern/
University of Bielefeld, Germany +49 (0)521/106-2494