• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• To: "- XML-Dev" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 14:53:11 +0800

From: Nik O <niko@c...>

>I argue that keeping simple "legal name character" rules is more
important
>than the rather slight possibility of breaking some existing XML
documents.
>At the risk of being labeled Anglo-centric, how many docs are likely to
have
>used these Greek, Arabic, Thai, Lao, or Tibetan symbols in XML names?

IMHO it should only be a wf-requirement to check for name characters
only with a granularity of  the low half-blocks: an application should
only need to look at 512 notional bits to test well-formedness of names,
apart from the first half block (i.e., the ASCII repertoire).   XML will
track Unicode, so the fine-grained approach of allocating name roles
character-by-character to every Unicode codepoint is overkill for
well-formedness and perhaps even for validity.

The full rules can be kept for full validity or as guidelines for
generating data. They are not bad, they are just more than is needed.

Rick Jelliffe


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...)

• Prev by Date: Re: Layers, again (was Re: fixing (just) namespaces and validation)
• Next by Date: Re: Ps --> xml (or html)
• Previous by thread: Re: First draft of proposed XML TC for Unicode 3.0 (unofficial)
• Next by thread: Re: First draft of proposed XML TC for Unicode 3.0 (unofficial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread