Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Well file (3.37) under Cygwin says foo.xml: XML document text so it must just be good old XML, right? What's the big problem here? %^} Mike -----Original Message----- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:39 AM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ? On Friday 21 December 2001 09:13 am, Champion, Mike wrote: > Right. That's why these various "death of text" and "can't edit with a text > editor" and "breaking Unix" threads mystify me: XML 1.0 opened the door to > all these problems. If folks have gotten by just fine using their ASCII > tools with XML 1.0, that's not likely to change with 1.1. OK, so you COULD > get an XML 1.1 (as drafted) document with NELs rather than LFs or various > control characters in it that may confuse vi or sed or more. I can't > imagine that these tools handle UTF-16 gracefully, so people who are > getting by with ASCII tools are getting by because of CONVENTIONS, not > STANDARDS. True enough. The case you're arguing for though is that all text processing tools need to change. In the long run, you may be right. FWIW. let's stop making this a theoretical thing. I've attached a file that I think should be a well-formed XML 1.1 document, assuming ESC and other control characters are allowed, encoded in US-ASCII (or UTF-8). Play with it a bit, and tell me what you think. Try doing a "cat foo.xml" on a Unix box, or "more foo.xml". Open it in emacs, and save it.
|
