W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2006


From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:53:06 -0600
Message-ID: <30b660a20609130853v2a001db2j33bccfb280821914@mail.gmail.com>
To: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, Jose <jose_stephen@cdactvm.in>, unicode@unicode.org, www-international@w3.org

As I recall, the problem with XML 1.1 adoption was that XML 1.1 was
not fully backwards compatible with XML 1.0: there were XML 1.0
documents that were not valid XML 1.1. That being the case, people
just didn't see it worthwhile to have two incompatible parsers.

As for ZWJ/NJ - the original intent was for these to not make any
semantic difference. There is a UTC action to collect cases where they
are being used to make a clear semantic difference (eg XXX means "sea
gull" and XX<ZWNJ>X means "republican"), so any feedback on such cases
would be useful.


On 9/13/06, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela scripsit:
> > In XML 1.1, ZWJ and ZWNJ are allowed in identifiers, but this is
> > probably of little practical value.
> It has the merit that it allows identifiers to be spelled correctly
> in the various languages that *require* ZWJ or ZWNJ or both; Persian
> and several Indic languages come to mind.
> If you meant simply that XML 1.1 is not widely adopted, and it is
> therefore of little practical value to write documents in it, I
> must sadly agree.
> --
> John Cowan       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        <cowan@ccil.org>
>         You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
>         You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
>                 Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:53:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:27 UTC