Re: back to XML: The "You Babe" problem

> So I think we should reword the spec to require one of:
>  (a) &u-babe;
>  (b) &U-BABE;
>  (c) &u-BABE;
>  (d) &U-babe;

I don't have a problem with allowing any of those forms.
If you only allow one, probably (b).

I wish that something like &#0xbabe; could be allowed, though -- a
relatively straight forward backward compatible extension to 8879 --
as per C, C++, Java, etc.