[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: those predeclared entity refs



At 14:13 25/03/97 -0800, Tim wrote:
> IN ALL XML DOCUMENTS, & SHOULD MEAN '&' AND NOTHING ELSE, EVER.  
> IN ALL XML DOCUMENTS, &lt; SHOULD MEAN '<' AND NOTHING ELSE, EVER.  
> IN ALL XML DOCUMENTS, &gt; SHOULD MEAN '>' AND NOTHING ELSE, EVER.  
> IN ALL XML DOCUMENTS, &quot; SHOULD MEAN '"' AND NOTHING ELSE, EVER.  
> IN ALL XML DOCUMENTS, &apos; SHOULD MEAN "'" AND NOTHING ELSE, EVER.  
>
>Can someone explain in simple terms what the problem is that is causing
>us to consider these measures that will greatly increase the
>difficulty of minimal XML parsing and the amount of explanation

a. Purists (perhaps "precisionists" is a less loaded term) dislike
   anything that smells of hard-wiring.

b. Internationalists dislike anything hard-wired to one language
   when parameterizing it would allow its expression differently
   in another.

Buying into these five is the penalty we pay for enabling WFness.
Anyone creating valid instances can presumably define what they like.

Remaining question: do we hardwire ISOLat1, ISOLat2, ISOPub and ISOTech
as being the four most widely-used sets of non-ASCII symbols in general?

///Peter


Follow-Ups: