- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 13:51:54 -0400
- To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Cc: <xml-editor@w3.org>
At 10:28 AM -0400 7/23/02, Karl Waclawek wrote: >Also what about documents that are intentionally designed to parse >under XML 1.0 *and* 1.1? Why force a choice on the parser? I believe such a document is a very bad idea. All documents should be XML 1.0 if at all possible. This is far more interoperable than the alternative. The only case that's not possible is where someone wants to use post-2.0 Unicode characters in markup; e.g. by writing element names in Amharic. Assuming you don't need to do this, you should write a pure 1.0 document and ignore XML 1.1. Note: I do not believe there is *ANY* need for allowing NEL in white space. Any document that uses this can easily be rewritten in an XML 1.0 compliant way with carriage returns and linefeeds. Any competent developer with the slightest concern for interoperability or longterm storage will do this anyway, even if XML 1.1 allows NEL. -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) | | http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 14:03:28 UTC