Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Mike Champion wrote: >> Fair enough, but if you remove all the unicode-character apparatus >> from XML 1.0 you probably cut that in half. Which is one of the only >> important *technical* differences between XML and SGML - SGML was >> really underspecified on what a "character" was. At the end of the >> day XML's main technical contribution may turn out to have been that >> it dragged Unicode into the mainstream. > > Stupid question: Why couldn't XML incorporate Unicode by reference > rather than spending half of the spec defining the "unicode-character > apparatus"? Well, XML1.1 is moving in that direction. Even given that, I think that XML 1.0's approach, with a big table right in the spec saying "here are the legal characters", was probably correct; I (and I'm sure many other programmers) ran a perl script over the spec to extract the char parsing tables. -Tim
|
