Re: internet media types and encoding

On Friday, April 11, 2003, 7:55:14 PM, Tim wrote:


TB> Chris Lilley wrote:
>> Unlike Rick I am not making this argument on the basis of the ease of
>> detecting encoding labelling or conversion errors; rather, on the
>> basis of those non-printing characters having no basis being in a
>> marked up document. I mean, start of string? end of guarded area?

TB> I profoundly agree with Chris here, but I had thought this issue to have 
TB> been long-since decided.  My vision of XML is that element content is 
TB> text, and text is a string of characters, and characters have the 
TB> semantics that Unicode says they have.  Most of the C0 and C1 control 
TB> characters have no useful or agreed-upon semantics, and they have no 
TB> place in XML under any circumstances.  Their inclusion substantially 
TB> decreases interoperability.

Succinct, accurate and agrees with me ;-)

+3

TB>  Do enough of the TAG agree that we should 
TB> take this up officially?  -Tim

I would support it, yes, but then you guessed that already.

But its goof to get the ISO character glyph model into the arch
document (basically - glyphs are not characters, be careful to use the
right term with its defined meaning), since a bunch of W3C specs
conform to it or try to, or were revised to conform to it more.



-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 14:58:09 UTC