Re: [48 hour] DRAFT Last Call comment Re: [XML 1.1] Allowable element names

[Sometimes it takes a Talmudic scholar to read Charles.

Bottom line: I think the summary stands the test of this exchange.  

Details follow.  -Al]

At 11:44 AM 2002-07-07, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

>Charles McCathieNevile <> wrote
>>> *  "no clear cut."
>> CMN But that isn't a position the group has agreed on. A thumbs-up character
>> or a smiley face is readable to a lot more people than using a non-zero
>> integer or the keyword "true", although it does present problems that require
>> resolution. But the argument is that absolute restrictions on names in XML
>> 1.1 will not be the best outcome for accessibility.
>I am confused (not uncommon!) Al's summary says "The discussion was inconclusive"
>and gives a lot of reasons where unrestricted characters can cause problems, but
>Charles is saying the opposite, that there was a conclusive decision reached that
>unrestricted characters are positively good.

The way that I read this requires a little more context than what you quoted.

I don't read this as changing what Charles said earlier


I am fine with this.


But rather saying that _endorsing the Unicode restrictions on identifiers in
particular_ is not a position on which the group had agreed.

Then he gets a little over-broad in saying "the argument is" where he might
more precisely have said "an argument has been made ..." which
demonstrates that one cannot presume consensus support for the narrowing of
the comment to endorse the Unicode rules.

He is not trying to say there was a consensus position against any restriction,
if I understand what he means to say.


>Sorry to be dense, 
>Rick Jelliffe

Received on Sunday, 7 July 2002 12:34:56 UTC