- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:52:00 -0700
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Paul Grosso wrote:
> So now it doesn't sound like, in fact, you were "arguing
> convincingly that the C1 control characters should be
> excluded from XML 1.1."
>
> Concentrating on this issue for a moment--which is the one
> I had raised and the one asked in the CR request--then how
> do you come down on the question of whether we should:
hmm... and sidestepping the C0 issue, which is the one I really care
about ... but anyhow:
>
> a. say that the presence of these characters (other than
> via an NCR) means the result is not well formed XML 1.1; or
>
> b. say that, since these characters are allowed (unescaped)
> in XML 1.0, the benefit of backward compatibility suggests
> we should continue to allow them in XML 1.1 (unescaped).
I'd go with (c.), not allowed either native or NCR'ed. I don't think
(a) makes any sense, I'm worried about them being in the infoset not
being in the syntax. However, I can see the other side of the argument,
and option (b) is clearly defensible. What I still can't see is why
introducing C0 controls into 1.1 is a good idea.
--
Cheers, Tim Bray
(ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 12:51:58 UTC