• From: "Paul W. Abrahams" <abrahams@v...>
• To: XMLDev list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:12:12 -0400

The XML 1.0 spec explicitly excludes the Unicode surrogate characters
from XML documents (production 2).  It now seems, from information
I've picked up on the Unicode web site, that surrogate characters are
likely to play a more important role in the future, since the
available 16-bit characters are almost all used up.  (Unicode 2.0 has
18,134 spares but Unicode 3.0 has only 7827 spares.  The trend is
clear.)

Is any thought being given in W3C to allowing surrogate characters in
XML documents?

Paul Abrahams



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Unicode surrogate block in XML?
    • From: Tony Graham <tgraham@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Another look at namespaces
• Next by Date: Re: XML in the real world... Was "Re: Another look at namespaces"
• Previous by thread: RE: Transmitting CGI vars to an XML doc.
• Next by thread: Re: Unicode surrogate block in XML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread