- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:02:44 +1000
- To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Cc: <www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org>
> John Cowan wrote > > > This is a request for comment from this mailing list (or anyone else) > > on a proposal by Shigemichi Yazawa for a standard representation for > > the Unicode control characters that are not legal in XML 1.0. See > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-blueberry-comments/2002May/0000. > html A control character may be a character or an embedded signal (i.e. a PI) but it is certainly not an element. There is a long history of discussion of using elements to represent characters, in particular for allowing user-defined characters, and these have always foundered that it is too bad a fit to use elements where character data is required. There have been many discussions on the W3C I18n IG, for example. Furthermore, would we then have pre-control-expansion infosets and post-control-expansion infosets? (On top of the current pre-|post-[validation|namespace processing|Xinclusion|XML Schema augmentation] mess) It would be better to reserve special characters which (like <) are not allowed as literals, for all the C0 and C1 controls. Or to allow numeric character references, but that is less tidy, because then people would be tempted to mark-up in code points rather than in characters. For example, &BEL; &NEL; &EOT; Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Monday, 13 May 2002 07:50:29 UTC