• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Unicode and XML (was Re: Remembering the original XML vision)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 16:55:02 -0500
• In-reply-to: <15955.43447.387664.522145@t...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <7c.35a8563b.2b7ff77d@a...> <15953.6208.564890.338677@t...> <15955.43447.387664.522145@t...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

On Wednesday 19 February 2003 10:58 am, Tony Graham wrote:
>  >  > There are a fair number of characters that really don't make much
>  >  > sense as markup... and XML 1.0 is pretty conservative, but generally
>  >  > sensible. At the time, there were no good guidelines from the Unicode
>  >  > consortium on what should/should not be allowed, which is something
>  >  > they have addressed recently.
>  >
>  > The Unicode Standard, Version 2.0, was published in 1996.  Section
>  > 5.14, Identifiers, contains guidelines for "the definition of
>  > identifier syntax."

That was considered as part of the work on XML 1.0, but wasn't sufficient by 
itself.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Unicode and XML (was Re: Remembering the original XML vision)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• 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...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: Are the data users happy? Why not?
• Next by Date: Re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• 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