Re: 12. Are C1 controls and Unicode non-characters disallowed?

I'm not sure MicroXML should attempt to 'fix' XML 1.x.
That would be for an XML 2.0.

----
Stephen D Green



On 11 September 2012 02:28, James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:28 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>wrote:
>
>>
>> We can say "U+FFFE and U+FFFF are banned in documents because that's
>> what XML says."
>>
>> Or we can say "Unicode non-characters are banned in documents."
>
>
> I think these both correspond to reasonable positions.
>
> The first position amounts to saying that we think XML made a mistake in
> disallowing U+FFFE and U+FFFF; it should have allowed all code points
> except surrogates.  Therefore we shouldn't make the situation any worse by
> increasing the number of disallowed code points. MicroXML disallows U+FFFE
> and U+FFFF only because XML did.
>
> The second position says that XML was right to disallow U+FFFE and U+FFFF.
>  Since XML was designed, Unicode has added characters that are in the same
> category as U+FFFE and U+FFFF. We should now fix MicroXML so that it is
> consistent with the current version of Unicode (and all future versions
> because of the Unicode stability policy).
>
> James
>