• To: cowan@m...
• Subject: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Somecomments on the 1.1 draft)
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:37:25 GMT
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <E16FnWx-0007ut-00@m...> (message from John Cowan onSun, 16 Dec 2001 21:29:27 -0500 (EST))
• References: <E16FnWx-0007ut-00@m...>

> And what is to be done with ASCII-encoded IBM plain text, which actually
> uses 85 to represent #x85?

One option is to add NEL to XML white space. It's not un unreasonable
suggestion, but I think the costs are too high for very little benefit,
since there are other options, which would also work with XML 1.0
such as
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ascii-with-nel"?>

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• References:
  • Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Somecomments on the 1.1 draft)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: So
• Next by Date: RE: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: So me comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Previous by thread: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Somecomments on the 1.1 draft)
• Next by thread: RE: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread