• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Unicode and XML (was Re: Remembering the original XML vision)
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:55:37 +1100
• References: <7c.35a8563b.2b7ff77d@a...> <15953.6208.564890.338677@t...> <15955.43447.387664.522145@t...> <200302231655.02200.gtn@r...>

On Wednesday 19 February 2003 10:58 am, Tony Graham wrote:
>  > The Unicode Standard, Version 2.0, was published in 1996.  Section
>  > 5.14, Identifiers, contains guidelines for "the definition of
>  > identifier syntax."


Another aspect of this is that characters appropriate for identifiers in the
ASCII range will always vary, because they tend to be determined by
other aspects of the language in which the identifier is being defined for:
for example, "-+/%" cannot be used in languages that tokenize "-+/%" to be 
mathematical operators, "." cannot be used in languages that have a method or
field shorthand using ".",  [01-9] cannot be used in languages that take a leading
digit to signify the start of a number, and so on.

So it is the non-ASCII portion of the Unicode recommendations that are 
of interest, and these are pretty similar to XML 1.0.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe 

• References:
  • Re: Remembering the original XML vision
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: Unicode and XML (was Re: Remembering the original XML vision)
    • From: Tony Graham <tg127171@t...>
  • Re: Unicode and XML (was Re: Remembering the original XML vision)
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The waterfall model lives? (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• Next by Date: Re: Entity declarations and non-validating parsers
• Previous by thread: Re: Unicode and XML (was Re: Remembering the original XML vision)
• Next by thread: Re: Unicode and XML (was Re: Remembering the original XML vision)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread