Re: ZWJ&XML

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.

Mark

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)
>
>