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

• From: <lee@sq.com>
• Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 16:44:59 EST
• To: tbray@textuality.com, w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
• Message-Id: <9701142144.AA21820@sqrex.sq.com>

> 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.

Lee

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 1997 16:45:30 UTC