- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:27:28 +0700
- To: public-microxml@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CANz3_EaTF1pa9pnNp57C7NSwbNeEBmk2m0W4NyPCmXqqHaFt1A@mail.gmail.com>
> > 1. What character repertoire is allowed in names? So far there has been > no demand to go past ASCII, but since I haven't noticed any posters who > aren't primarily anglophones, I'm not sure that counts. Let's have more > input here. Reasonable possibilities are to allow either just ASCII or > the XML 1.0 5th Edition / XML 1.1 choices. The old XML 1.0 choice is > also possible, but implementing it would be pulling teeth. I think we should allow non-ASCII names, and the XML 1.0 5th Edition is the best way to do it. Non-ASCII names don't seem to be used all that much. However, I don't have any hard data. More importantly, I believe MicroXML should support users doing generic markup in the "right" way. If you are designing a vocabulary for something that is inherently specific to a particular country, then it's a perfectly natural, reasonable thing to do is to use the language of that country for the names of your elements and attributes. I can't find the link, but Murata-san has described some examples from Japan, where Japanese industry standards use Japanese for element names, for which it would have been very hard to find English translations. I would feel really bad disallowing this kind of thing. I also think it would look really bad for a committee of anglophones to decide on behalf of the non-English speaking peoples of the world that they should use English for their element and attribute names. James
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 03:28:16 UTC