- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:17:29 +0100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, msm@w3.org
Oh... I missed that. This maybe changes my analysis of special characters in RDF/XML literals, but I don't think that really matters now. #g -- At 17:10 10/08/03 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote: >At 12:17 03/08/07 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: > >>At 13:55 04/08/03 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote: >>>Yes, in particular most C0 control characters, in XML 1.0. >>>Most of that will be changed in XML 1.1. The NULL character >>>(U+0000) still isn't legal XML 1.1, as far as I know. >> >>I'm offline, so can't check, but I thought many (but not all) of the >>control characters not allowed in XML 1.0 remained so in 1.1. > >They cannot be used directly, but they can be used if encoded >as numeric character references (important to avoid some >security problems,...). See >http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#sec4.1: > > >>>> >4.1 Character and Entity References > >Change the Well-formedness constraint: Legal Character to read: > >Characters referred to using character references must either match the >production for Char, or be one of the ISO control characters in the ranges >[#x1-#x1F] or [#x7F-#x9F]. > >>>> > > >Regards, Martin. > > >>See my message ... >> >>X-Archived-At: >>http://www.w3.org/mid/5.1.0.14.2.20030725153840.02a5ce40@127.0.0.1 >> >>#g >> >> >>------------ >>Graham Klyne _________ >>GK@ninebynine.org ___|_o_o_o_|_$B%c(B >> \____________/ >>(nb Helva) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @Cliveden, River Thames > >------------ >Graham Klyne _________ >GK@ninebynine.org ___|_o_o_o_|_¬ > \____________/ >(nb Helva) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ @Kingston, River Thames
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 07:52:50 UTC