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 
Cheers, Tim Bray
         (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 18:29:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:37 UTC