• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowedcharacters in XML)
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:47:41 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <3C21C822.1020007@d...> from Eric van der Vlist at "Dec20, 2001 12:14:42 pm"

Eric van der Vlist scripsit:

> I agree: there is a much better and simpler reason to forbid binary 
> content from XML documents ;=) ...

This "binary content in XML documents" is a complete red herring from
the XML 1.1 viewpoint.  XML is a textual standard, and XML 1.1 no
less so.  The question is about allowing the unusual, but legitimate,
*characters* U+0000 through U+001F.

> IMO, none of them, but rather a fundamental design decision: a XML 
> entity is a Unicode text (eventually using another encoding) and not a 
> stream of bytes.
> 
> This should be a sufficient reason to close the debate IMO!

Not at all.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@c...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML and mainframes, yet again
• Next by Date: Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
• Previous by thread: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
• Next by thread: Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread