Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
James Clark wrote: > >I'm not convinced. The XML spec says that Unicode character #x85 is not > >a whitespace characters. It appears from the Note that EBCDIC text > >files on IBM mainframes represent newline by a byte with code 0x85. The > >solution appears obvious to me: the EBCDIC encoding table used by the > >XML parser should map byte 0x85 to Unicode character 0xA. The note from IBM is arguing that the XML spec is wrong by not designating #x85 as white space. So the wording of the XML spec here doesn't seem like a good reason not to be convinced. The fix to the EBCDIC coding table may work but it appears to me that this is something of a hack because the original software is intending to create Unicode U0085 characters. I would prefer for XML parsers to be able to use standard encoding tables - perhaps from generic libraries rather than having to create a special XML flavour. Tim Bray replied: > This feels much better. And upon reflection, the thought of > XML files which have been through a mainframe starting to > percolate around the system with U+0085 embedded inside > start tags makes me nervous; <snip/> > Also, unlike (almost?) all the other XML errata, changing this > would actively break pretty well every deployed piece of XML > software in the world. -Tim Arguably every deployed piece of XML software is already broken wrt files containing U+0085. It appears to me that you (the editors) went to great lengths to adopt the full Unicode specification rather than creating an XML subset. If this was an oversight then I believe it makes sense to make good the mistake and maintain full support for Unicode. Regards Rob Lugt ElCel Technology
|
