[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > A different decision was made for name characters. There it was > decided that these would be based on Unicode 2.0, and that code > points which might be assigned in the future would not be allowed > as name characters. I think that was the *effect* of the decision, but not actually the decision itself. > I'm not sure that decision was right, but I > don't think a convincing argument for revisiting it now has been > made yet. Please tell me what kind of argument you would find convincing. > Even if > Unicode did something as radical as shuffling the code points for > the different characters, that wouldn't mean that XML had to > change. Which Unicode would never do. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
|

Cart



