• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• To: "Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake@a...>
• Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:14:46 -0400 (EDT)

Fred L. Drake, Jr. scripsit:

>   Looking at XML 1.0 (2e), section 2.2 ("Characters"), at the "Char"
> production, I'm led to believe that U+0000 is not a legal XML
> character.

It is not legal.

> The comment attached to that production makes things less
> clear (at least to me), in that it seems to imply that all by the
> surrogates, U+FFFE, and U+FFFF are legal.

No.

>   So, should U+0000 be interpreted as whitespace, non-whitespace, or
> an error?  (References to something I've missed would be quite
> welcome!)

An error.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@c...
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Character &#0;
    • From: "Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake@a...>

• References:
  • Character &#0;
    • From: "Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Character &#0;
• Next by Date: Re: Character &#0;
• Previous by thread: Character &#0;
• Next by thread: Re: Character &#0;
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread