Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Williams, David wrote: > I apologize for any of my ignorance here... but I have one > question, and one idea.. > > Question(s)- ((This is really for those people who feel like it, > indeed, does...)) How exactly does "Blueberry" break the XML 1.0 > specification? (specifics... what would break, what would work > poorly...) It extends *names* (element names, attribute names, entity names, ids, ...). There is no effect on character data. It also allows IBM mainframes to use their idea of plain text (NEL-terminated lines) without having to translate to CR or LF or CRLF-terminated lines. It is already possible to write Burmese text with HTML markup. What you cannot do is to devise a markup vocabulary using Burmese terminology, unless you transliterate it to Latin or some other Unicode-2.0-supported script. > I already have a feeling I know the reply to this, but couldn't an > XML-Blueberry document once written in ancient hieroglyphs be > pre-processed into something that XML 1.0 parsers/processors could > understand machine-wise, but that might not be as readily > understandable by humans? Sure. You just replace the names with a verbose but unique transliteration. -- 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
|
