Re: [xml-dev] W3C XML Core WG requests comment: control characters in XML 1.1 from John Cowan on 2002-05-13 (www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org from May 2002)

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 13:12:42 -0400 (EDT)
To: ricko@allette.com.au (Rick Jelliffe)
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org, www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <200205131712.NAA23896@mail.reutershealth.com>

Rick Jelliffe scripsit:

> A control character may be a character or an embedded signal (i.e. a PI)
> but it is certainly
> not an element.=20

Of course not.  But it may be *represented* by an element.

> 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)

No.  This would be a universally available application convention,
like xml:space and xml:lang, not affecting any infoset.

> It would be better to reserve special characters which (like &lt;) are
> not allowed as literals,
> for all the C0 and C1 controls.

I don't understand this idea.  You mean magic entity references?
The trouble is that "&lt;" is not actually magic, except that
it needs no declaration: it has a definite replacement text.
Something like "&BEL;" would have no legal replacement.

> 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=20
> characters.

Just so.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

Received on Monday, 13 May 2002 13:12:50 UTC