- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:39:37 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
At 09:28 2003 04 14 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
>Norman Walsh wrote:
>
>>I think Rick, Chris, Tim, et. al., argue convincingly that the C1
>>control characters should be excluded from XML 1.1.
>
>...
>
>>And do what? Issue a finding that says C1 control characters should be
>>excluded from XML 1.1?
>
>I think we're kind of stuck with the C1 chars based on them having been allowed in XML 1.0.
So now it doesn't sound like, in fact, you were "arguing
convincingly that the C1 control characters should be
excluded from XML 1.1."
Concentrating on this issue for a moment--which is the one
I had raised and the one asked in the CR request--then how
do you come down on the question of whether we should:
a. say that the presence of these characters (other than
via an NCR) means the result is not well formed XML 1.1; or
b. say that, since these characters are allowed (unescaped)
in XML 1.0, the benefit of backward compatibility suggests
we should continue to allow them in XML 1.1 (unescaped).
paul
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 12:40:21 UTC