OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?

Just thinking...

Would things be made simpler if an XML 1.0.5 processor had to support both 
the pre-5th edition character set and the post-5th edition character set? 
By default, out the box, the processor would only allow the pre-5th edition 
characters.  So if you just updated to the latest 5th edition capable 
version of libxml / Xerces / MSXML you'd still have the restricted character 
set.  To get the enhanced character set you'd have to explicitly call some 
function, or add some flag to the initialisation code.

If the 5th edition required an XML processor to have that behaviour, would 
it help?  Would it be politically acceptable to specify such behaviour?


Pete Cordell
For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
To: "'Michael Champion'" <mc@xegesis.org>; "'XML Developers List'" 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:01 AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?

> >Are there real-world scenarios where current applications break? (I don't
> mean corner cases in implementers test suites, I mean actual applications
> that somehow depend a parser rejecting documents that would be accepted
> under the proposed edited recommendation).
> I would think there are very many applications that would break if obscure
> characters start appearing in names or IDs. But most of them would break 
> on
> obscure characters that XML 1.0 already allows. The interesting case is an
> application that (a) handles all XML 1.0 names correctly, (b) can't handle
> all XML 1.0.5 names, and (c) actually starts receiving documents 
> containing
> XML 1.0.5 names. I suspect that won't happen very often. But it doesn't
> alter the fact that someone who deploys such an application is entitled to
> prevent failures happening by configuring it to use a parser that enforces
> the rules his application is relying on, and that's going to be a lot 
> easier
> to achieve if different versions of the specification are properly 
> numbered.
> After all, the extended character set is being supported to meet the needs
> of a minority community. In meeting their needs, we mustn't forget the 
> needs
> of another minority community, namely those who care about high integrity
> systems.
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>  _____
> From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
> Sent: 22 February 2008 05:59
> To: XML Developers List
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS