Re: A note on case sensitivity
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 22:41:12 -0400 <email@example.com> said:
>> Making XML markup case-sensitive is
>> clearly the *right* thing to do,
As do I. I also think it's the most practicable thing to do. We
will never have less XML legacy data to worry about than we do now
-- so it will never be easier to introduce case sensitivity
throughout the markup language than it is now.
>> but adds a lot of work for those who
>> want to interoperate with SGML and especially HTML.
>Well, the internationalised HTML working group is facing the same issue
>at exactly this moment, and seems to have reached the same conclusion:
>It looks like I18N HTML will have to have NAMECASE NO.
Let's go with them.
>> Failing that, I don't suppose there's any support for going back to
>> 7-bit characters, just for GI's and attribute names?
>If it would help, I would support it.
If we *have* to have case folding, which I strenuously dispute, then
the simplest fallback is to use the default case-folding tables of
the Unicode Consortium, which are not hard to get (they come on the
CD when you buy the book, nowadays, and I suspect they're even on
the net somewhere). As the Unicode Standard Version 2.0 says
(section 4.1, Case, p. 4-2): "In a few instances, upper- and
lowercase mappings may differ from language to language between
writing systems that employ the same letters. Examples include
Turkish (... [dotted and dotless I]) and French (...). However, in
general the vast majority of case mappings are uniform across
I don't think case-folding is essential to the utility or success of
XML. Even if it is, though, I don't think it's more important than
Let's all take a deep breath. Case-sensitive element names,
attribute names, attribute values. We can live with that. Element
names restricted to a subset of the alphabet (say, A-J, all
uppercase)? I couldn't live happily with that, and I can't see
asking the native speakers of every language but English and Latin
to do so.
-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen