Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Bray wrote: > I see your point, but there are all these people out there > who keep saying they want a way to give funny characters > human-readable names and don't want to use elements because > they think structure and content are different. No matter > how many times they are told that they shouldn't really need > the names and that if they did they should use elements, > they keep refusing to take our word for this, so we're gonna > have to do something. Sigh. > The WG's approach does at least have the virtue that it works with > existing software. Indeed. > I despise entities in general more and more with each passing year, > but it's pretty clearly character entities that are the bit that > just won't go away; I seem to recall weeping with James Clark over > this into our 18th or 19th glasses of red wine at the last XML > conference. Because they don't round trip after parsing? Or because of having to expand the entities before you can use them? > I know I don't when I'm in rdhead or oweenie mode - 몾 does the > job fine - It does, but &#xnnn;'s scattered throughout a document are hard to proof. That's the only reason people want names (and not as elements!:). > but people who want to edit XML by hand really want to be able to use > € and the like. Yes. In fifteen or so years, when purely ASCII/ANSI/ISO-* editors are history, I doubt if anyone will care, but I don't see the point in axing the internal subset at this point in time. I'm not sure I see the point of axing it in the future either. > Once again, sigh. I haven't seen a better idea, but one would be > welcome. Hmm, has anyone suggested > > &#uCYRILLIC-CAPITAL-LETTER-TSE; (aka Ц) or > &#uPARTIAL-DIFFERENTIAL; (aka∂) Again, why exactly -- except for "round-tripping" -- is a huge built-in Unicode character reference database (that changes with every rev of Unicode) better than having the convenience of being able to declare &Tse; and the few others you might want in the internal subset? /Jelks
|
