Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 11:40 PM -0400 7/10/01, Jonathan Borden wrote: >Perhaps I might paraphrase this by suggesting that we define was is not >allowed in a name rather than what is. At the very least the set of >characters not allowed in a name are those needed to prevent ambiguity >(whitespace,">,)|=*+"). If that were done, then I would propose eliminating the characters from currently defined Unicode code points that we know are not name characters, not just the ones that would cause ambiguity. For instance, there's no reason to allow the currently defined symbol characters and punctuation marks from the various scripts. The only new things you *need* to allow to get the benefit you want are the code points in Unicode which are currently not assigned to any characters. (Note: I'm still not convinced that any change should be made at all, but I see no reason why something like this would require making the rupee sign a name character.) -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) | | http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
