• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Subject: Re: UTF-8+names
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 08:29:31 -0700
• Cc: elharo@m..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200310191350.OAA21108@e3000>
• References: <200310191350.OAA21108@e3000>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

David Carlisle wrote:

> My reading was that < _is_ defined in utf8+names as it _is_ defined in
> html and mathml but the result is still that the result is well formed,
> but has utf8+names expansion  < rather than <.

You're partially right, < is defined by old-fashioned (SGML-based) 
HTML but it's *not* defined by XHTML or MathML.  That's because it's 
wired into XML so XHTML gets it for free.  So it is *definitely* not 
defined in UTF-8+names, and the I-D should say that.

-- 
Cheers, Tim Bray (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>

• Prev by Date: missing tools
• Next by Date: RE: more fixed lists (was UTF-8+names)
• Previous by thread: Re: UTF-8+names
• Next by thread: Re: UTF-8+names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread