• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:13:15 -0800
• References: <575CBD83AE7DD411A23500B0D049C2F941A379@SRVSOCRATE>

Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
> So why do people keep on insisting that their XML content be readable with
> vi ? Why does it matter so much for people to be able to read XML documents
> with non appropriate tools, while we could easily have true XML viewers ?

Because one of the uses of XML is for archival purposes. If you make it readable
by only "true XML viewers" instead of plain text editors, then you've lost some
of its usefulness as an archival format. Yes, yes, I realize that not all text
editors can read all encodings, but XML is closer than proprietary formats to
this task. (Besides if disks keep getting cheaper and Unicode more wide-spread,
maybe somebody will update vi for Unicode and that will handle a majority of the
cases.)

-- Ron

• References:
  • RE: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
    • From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>

• Prev by Date: RE: WebDAV (was Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft)
• Next by Date: RE: terra incognita
• Previous by thread: RE: Lexical vs value spaces (re: Binary content and allowed characters in XML)
• Next by thread: RE: Supporting Unicode
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread