- From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:53:06 -0600
- To: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>
- Cc: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, Jose <jose_stephen@cdactvm.in>, unicode@unicode.org, www-international@w3.org
As I recall, the problem with XML 1.1 adoption was that XML 1.1 was not fully backwards compatible with XML 1.0: there were XML 1.0 documents that were not valid XML 1.1. That being the case, people just didn't see it worthwhile to have two incompatible parsers. As for ZWJ/NJ - the original intent was for these to not make any semantic difference. There is a UTC action to collect cases where they are being used to make a clear semantic difference (eg XXX means "sea gull" and XX<ZWNJ>X means "republican"), so any feedback on such cases would be useful. Mark On 9/13/06, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote: > > > Jukka K. Korpela scripsit: > > > In XML 1.1, ZWJ and ZWNJ are allowed in identifiers, but this is > > probably of little practical value. > > It has the merit that it allows identifiers to be spelled correctly > in the various languages that *require* ZWJ or ZWNJ or both; Persian > and several Indic languages come to mind. > > If you meant simply that XML 1.1 is not widely adopted, and it is > therefore of little practical value to write documents in it, I > must sadly agree. > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <cowan@ccil.org> > You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. > You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. > Clear all so! `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5) > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:53:16 UTC