• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 21:17:10 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200112210118.BAA07722@r...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <200112210118.BAA07722@r...>

On Thursday 20 December 2001 08:18 pm, Richard Tobin wrote:
> You referred to text mode in stdio.  In Unix, there is no distinction
> between text and binary mode in stdio.  Text mode in Unix does not
> do any line-end conversion, and does not interpret control-D.  It is
> a no-op.

This is still not a reason to allow control codes. You know, as well as I do, 
that they *will* cause problems. NUL is of course even worse. One reason for 
XML's success is that it is easily manipulated by common tools (see The Art 
of Programming). We should maintain that.

My objection is really based on what makes sense for a textual markup 
language, and what doesn't.. The use of XML for database interchange, and for 
open protocols, is new, and probably part of a very short technology cycle 
(meaning that it will likely become irrelevant in the big picture, and likely 
replaced in the next 5-10 years).

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• References:
  • Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• Next by Date: RE: Namespace Usage Question
• Previous by thread: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• Next by thread: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread