[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On May 16, 2005, at 17:54, Michael Kay wrote:
> There's no such thing as an "end user". Certainly people who author
> documents are not end users. But that doesn't mean they are software
> developers either.
OK.
XML 1.1 adds value to people who see the tags and who *need* particular
characters in the tags. Of document-oriented authors (as opposed to
developers creating data-oriented vocabularies and dealing with element
names while at it) that leaves document authors who are not using--and
cannot use--an editor that abstracts the tags away and *need* the
particular characters in the tags (ie. *need* their custom schema using
characters that weren't allowed in XML 1.0 instead of using XHTML,
DocBook, TEI or whatever vocabulary that works with XML 1.0).
I still have trouble seeing why this use case justifies breaking
interop with all the XML 1.0 tools out there. I am not saying it
wouldn't have been nice to enable it back when XML 1.0 was being
defined. I also would understand it if it was about characters allowed
in content. I do think Unicode--astral planes included--for content is
a must.
The schema issue that started this thread demonstrates that the interop
problem is not just about swapping the XML parser but the issue has
ugly ripple effects.
(BTW, most of the time when I write prose in a markup format with my
author hat on, I consider having to take a look at the tags as a bug in
the authoring tools--not as something I'd ideally do.)
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
|
