Re: [xml-dev] Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1

From
Elliotte Rusty Harold <>
To
Rick Jelliffe <>
Date
2003-11-11T05:01:01Z
ID
<p06002011bbd61d39d949@[192.168.254.4]>
Thread
Re: [xml-dev] Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
At 3:49 PM +1100 11/11/03, Rick Jelliffe wrote:


>So the argument against literal C0 characters is that inband control 
>characters
>are transmission artifacts that have no place literally in data. Use 
>references
>to get the character but escape the control semantic.

There's also the argument that C0 controls may accidentally control 
something. There are still a few old printers here and there that 
will break a page on a form feed. There might even be some gateways 
that use the C0's for other purposes.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA