- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:36:41 -0700
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- CC: public-microxml <public-microxml@w3.org>
> > Please include. We've ignored non ASCII users before. > > Is it a high cost for an implementer? > > Unicode as such is not; allowing or disallowing only selected characters is. > A tradeoff here ... If we want to ease the translation of JSON to XML then having a wider character set available in MicroXML (aka Unicode) is useful. It is common (although wrought with problems) to try to translate JSON member names into XML element names. VS If the character set is wider then XML then MicroXML cannot be valid XML. Spaces are one annoying thing that JSON allows as member names but XML does not as element names.
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 18:37:12 UTC