• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 10:36:57 -0800
• In-reply-to: <E16H6Od-0008CM-00@s...>
• References: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4021BD17B@u...><9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4021BD17B@u...>

At 11:33 AM 20/12/01 -0500, Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> I should 
>note that in the WG were a number of experts in the field (in fact, a 
>significant portion of the XML WG were I18N/Unicode experts of one form or 
>another... certainly many were much more versed in I18N/Unicode than is 
>common).

Lots of us were pretty ignorant when we got started on XML.  We
took the motherhood decision to "base it on Unicode" without
really understanding what that meant, and got a very stiff and
rapid education at the merciless hands of the real Unicode wonks
who simply wouldn't let us go too far off the rails.  

However, the group did include a people like me who'd
delved heavily into non-Latin text processing in the bad old
pre-Unicode style and thus were well-placed to understand why
this was important. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
  • Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture? (was RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?)
• Next by Date: Re: Supporting Unicode
• Previous by thread: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Next by thread: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread