• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 11:16:49 -0500
• In-reply-to: <E16H1fp-0002EL-00@m...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <E16H1fp-0002EL-00@m...>

On Thursday 20 December 2001 06:47 am, John Cowan wrote:
> This "binary content in XML documents" is a complete red herring from
> the XML 1.1 viewpoint.  XML is a textual standard, and XML 1.1 no
> less so.  The question is about allowing the unusual, but legitimate,
> *characters* U+0000 through U+001F.

This is the abstract debate... there is also the practical matter of existing 
systems, such as Daniel mentioned.

FWIW. I do *not* think, despite the fact that they appear in Unicode, that 
many of these "characters" are legitimate in text. The special treatment of 
them is a good indication that this is a grey area.

Characters are supposed to be a unit of information (generally in the context 
of a given language).... and  *usually* have one or more glyphs associated 
with them.

   http://WhatIs.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci211773,00.html

I find very little information in BEL, NUL, et al.

• References:
  • Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowedcharacters in XML)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Next by Date: Re: Time to put SGML out to pasture?
• Previous by thread: Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
• Next by thread: Re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread