RE: [xml-dev] Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?

[Len Bullard <len.bullard@uai.com>]

Somewhere in that reply is the logical condition that some members of the
audience aren't human. ;-)

This part of the discussion seems to have the most knots.  Can you clarify
the positions?  Requiring a parser to explicitly ignore characters doesn't
seem right to me but I likely misunderstand.

len


From: Elliotte Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu] 

Jonathan Robie wrote:
> 
> Why do all this work? A character is a character is a character, except 
> for certain well known ranges. The more we try to interpret the more 
> obscure characters, the more trouble we get into.

Because XML is supposed to be human readable and interoperable. This means:

1. Undefined, unprintable characters are very bad.
2. Characters that someone doesn't have a font for are bad.
3. Unrecognized characters from languages the audience doesn't speak are 
bad.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.