- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:21:52 -0400
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- CC: xml-dev@lists.xml.org, www-xml-blueberry-comments <www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org>
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > Tim Bray attributed me with saying that "changing XML is > unthinkable". That's not my position. It is thinkable, but before > we do it, I want it shown conclusively that change is needed. So > far that proof is sorely lacking. I say, and you have implicitly conceded, that *need* is an inappropriate standard: nobody (or almost nobody) *needs* more than Latin, or indeed ASCII. It's what people *want* that counts. It may be that people who wanted their native scripts encoded in Unicode (if they hadn't, Unicode surely wouldn't have encoded them) may in fact not want to use those scripts in native-language markup. But the burden of persuasion for such an extraordinary claim is on the claimant. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 13:21:54 UTC