Lists Home |
Date Index |
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>>I'm not sure I agree. In UTF-8+names, ü could show up either
>>as itself as ü - if you had the gear that could handle
>>it as itself just put it in that way and you're fine.
> Why would it show up as "ü"? I agree with Alessandro and James here, it doesn't seem that your proposal does what you think it does.
I missed an "or" in there. In +names, ü has two possible encodings: the
standard UTF-8 version (C3 BC if my mental UTF-8 bitshifter is right),
and as the sequence ü. Authors and software could choose to use
> Entities have nothing to do with schemas. It's bad enough
I agree. This hasn't stopped people saying that they want entities but
>>The +names proposal is the only thing I could think of that had
>>the remotest hope of giving them what they want and actually
> Getting implemented by whom?
People who write XML infrastructure.
Cheers, Tim Bray (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)