W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2003

Re: [Minutes] 14 Apr 2003 TAG teleconf (URIEquivalence-15, IRIEverywhere-27, xmlIDSemantics-32, abstractComponentRefs-37, namespaceDocument-8)

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 15:29:30 -0700
Message-ID: <3E9C87CA.4070209@textuality.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org

Chris Lilley wrote:

> In the XML instance, this may be accomplished by having them appear as
> themselves (unless you deliberately chose a less portable and less
> comprehensive encoding than the two universally understood ones and
> declared it as such in the xml encoding declaration in which case, ask
> yourself again what you did that for) or via NCRs.

I write XML in ISO-8859 all the time.  Furthermore, the original source 
code of the XML 1.0 specification was in ISO-8859-1.  For me, ISO-8859-1 
is culturally appropriate and storage-efficient.  'Ongoing' is written 
in pure ASCII, (which, left undeclared, pretends to be UTF-8). 
'Ongoing' makes regular use of non-ASCII characters, this is made easy 
by XML's entity & NCR mechanism.

XML is explicitly designed to allow people to use the encodings that are 
appropriate for them, and there's good support for this in deployed 
software.
-- 
Cheers, Tim Bray
         (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 18:29:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:17 GMT