Re: SDATA, again

Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.UIC.EDU> recently said:
>On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 19:23:25 -0500 Terry Allen said:

>>And if it is truly contemplated that the private use area (rather than
>>SDATA entities) are to be used for the purpose under discussion, doesn't
>>the EBNF need to reflect that?
>I believe it does -- unless you mean that you think the characters in
>the private-use area should be allowed in generic identifiers.  The
>EBNF doesn't reflect that, because I believe there is some consensus
>that private-use characters should be data, not markup.

If you use the private use area, then either XML must prespecify the
abstract character represented by the encoding, which is impossible
by definition as I see it, or XML must make these non-SGML character
numbers, which means they cannot be in the document directly but only
via numeric character references, or XML must permit users to change
(extend) the document character set.

You pays your money and you takes your choice; I don't think you want
any of the three.  ;-|

Dave Peterson