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

Re: XML Blueberry

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:57:47 -0400
Message-ID: <3B33952B.5060109@reutershealth.com>
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
CC: xml-dev@xml.org, www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
David Carlisle wrote:

> You need to put the [Blueberry] mark at the top (I'd guess)
> and you don't know what characters are used (if you ever know) until the
> end.

Good point.

> 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?

Because content is supposed to be readable iff you care about it.

Most programs won't care about content.  They will care about element
names and attribute names.

>>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?

The difference between missing 20 characters and missing about 45K new
characters is too large to ignore.

> (Would you give a different answer if one of those characters was used
> in my name?)

None of the new characters represent a new living script: they are
marginal extensions to old scripts, such as the extra small katakana
used to write Ainu.


There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein
Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 14:58:29 UTC

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