• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
• Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 18:31:55 -0400

Rick JELLIFFE wrote:

> This would keep a basic XML implementation that did not support "character
> validity" simple:
>  1) it can use any library for transcoding
>  2) it does not have to have any special BOM handling for utf16xe
>  3) it can tokenize tags based on whitespace and delimiters rather than
> NAMECHAR or NAMESTRT
>  4) normalization not checked/enforced

This goes well beyond the goals of XML 1.0 2nd ed, which is not meant to
change radical things like your #3.  It is simply a republication with
the errata incorporated of XML 1.0.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
    • From: Steve Schafer <pandeng@t...>
  • Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
    • From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w...>

• References:
  • Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
• Next by Date: Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
• Previous by thread: Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
• Next by thread: Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread