- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 04:21:32 +1000
- To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Cc: <www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org>
From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com> > Rick Jelliffe wrote: > > > A control character may be a character or an embedded signal (i.e. a PI) > > but it is certainly not an element. > > Of course not. But it may be *represented* by an element. What is the difference between being represented by an element and being an element? > > It would be better to reserve special characters which (like <) 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 "<" is not actually magic, except that > it needs no declaration: it has a definite replacement text. > Something like "&BEL;" would have no legal replacement. No, &BEL; would have definite replacement text: the Unicode character of that number. It would just have particular serialization rules, as do many characters. For a rather more worked-out proposal for using elements to represent arbitrary characters, see my conference paper "Elements for Non-Unicode Characters in XML" at http://www.ascc.net/~ricko/xcs/missing_chars.html (which was presented as part of a report on my interests at Academia Sinica http://www.ascc.net/~ricko/ethnology.html along with DrLove, as proposal for using RDF to describe Document Resources http://www.ascc.net/~ricko/drlove.htm. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Monday, 13 May 2002 14:09:18 UTC