W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org > June 2001

Re: XML Blueberry

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:28:48 +0100
Message-Id: <200106221728.SAA17604@penguin.nag.co.uk>
To: jcowan@reutershealth.com
CC: xml-dev@xml.org, www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org

> I, at least, would like to say that it's a Best Practice not to
> generate a Blueberry mark unless you need it.  You can be sure
> I will lobby to get such language into the eventual Blueberry rec.

but many tools stream. You need to put the mark at the top (I'd guess)
and you don't know what characters are used (if you ever know) until the

> Readability.  If people are allowed to use characters at U+30000 and up,
> which will probably *never* be assigned for anything, then there is no

I don't follow this argument, what's the point in forcing that the
markup be readable if you don't force the content be readable?

> In particular, there would only be about 20-odd name characters in
> Unicode 3.2, which could very well be deferred.

Why is it OK to defer those if it's not OK to defer the 3.1 ones?
(Would you give a different answer if one of those characters was used
in my name?)


This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 13:28:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:13:17 UTC