• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XML and mainframes, yet again
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 10:57:33 -0800
• In-reply-to: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4020E2786@u...>

At 05:57 PM 15/12/01 -0700, Champion, Mike wrote:
>I don't like the flavor of this dogfood any more than anyone else here, but
>the Unicode folks have provided a lifetime supply. I guess XML had better
>learn to stomach it if XML wants to eat at Unicode's table.

For what it's worth, I think that adding NEL is in fact a more
correct usage of Unicode than what XML 1.0 specifies.  I'm still
against it because it has a lousy cost/benefit trade-off.  
XML 1.0 achieves a pretty good balance of making the benefits
of Unicode available without incurring much in the way of cost
for users of legacy text-processing systems.  I think the
linebreak aspects of Blueberry are a step back in that respect.
 -Tim

• References:
  • RE: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: So me comments on the 1.1 draft)
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

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