- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 11:08:01 -0500
- To: mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com
- CC: gkholman@microstar.com, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>Even then they have not looked beyond the existing SGML case >of 1:1 mapping. You only have to consider the mapping for ß to >understand that 1:1 is not sufficient for 10646. In fact a general m:m >solution is needed to cope with all the quirks of all languages. (But this >must wait for SGML97++ I suspect:-(...) The need to specify lexical equivalence of strings is an important capability missing from SGML. Rick and I've talked about this many times. >The point is that we need to be able to build composite documents from >entities that have their own language-sets. At present SGML does not allow >for this because of the rules about shared character sets. HMTL forbids it >due to character set restrictions and its inability to reference >entities. I would like those developing XML to consider the language >question from day one, rather than as an add-on, and to consider it >with respect to whether we need a better way to intergrate data >entities so that we can prepare compound multilingual documents >logically. This is why I suggested ISO 10646. using this we should be able to do something like: <XML> <DIV LANG="en.uk"> &english; </DIV> <DIV LANG="ja"> &japanese; </DIV> <DIV LANG="zh"> &chinese; </DIV> </XML> and even if the entities are in different encodings, parse, and process the document.
Received on Monday, 28 October 1996 11:11:15 UTC