Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> and hopefully, as characters in our email I don't think technology will block that so much as the curmudgeonly people who flame anyone who dares send e-mail in such new-fangled encodings as HTML. If we have had HTML for ten years and people still get scorched for sending it in e-mail, I don't have very high hopes for any further evolution in e-mail encoding capabilities. Even in 2007, when the majority of the Internet communicates in Chinese utf-16, I bet Western Europe will still be arguing about whether or not e-mail should allow XML. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Kay [mailto:michael.h.kay@n...] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 12:58 AM To: 'Richard Tobin'; xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Some comments on the 1.1 draft > XPath and probably some other languages rely on digits not being > name starts for their tokenizing. Compare a[b] and a[1]. > > I think it would be a mistake to change the name-start status of any > of the standard ASCII characters. > I have been looking forward to the day when we could break away from the ASCII legacy and start using characters such as  §, ¬, Ã?, ÷, â??, and â?© as operators in our programming languages (and hopefully, as characters in our email). I hope XML 1.1 will not kill these hopes. Mike Kay
|
