> Evidently people don't want to be stuck with Unicode 2.1 for XML
> Names. Now XML could either move to some newer version of Unicode, or
> have some automatic mapping from Unicode character classes to name
> characters, or just allow (almost) everything and say that it's not
> the business of XML to deal with this sort of detail. The first two
> both require parsers to change as Unicode changes; the third is a
> once-and-for-all change - I think that's the main reason why it is
> what has been proposed.
It still doesn't seem right, but maybe the proposal just needs to
marinate for a while. I seem to recall James Clark originally
proposing that the rules not just move out of XML, but move
into something else (another "layer" if you will).
> I think most parser writers don't want to have to check for
> normalization; it is the i18n people who are pressing for this.
It'd be much better to have that normalization be done by layers
above XML than to hard-wire such requirements into the core
of XML. I'd certainly expect normalization rules to evolve.
Of course, that'd mean getting a useful specification of how such
layering is done ... and hmm, normalizing names might create
trouble, it could easily change one name into another.
- Dave
