Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Carlisle wrote: > > Nothing to do with old or new editors. The editor I use is > more than capable of taking an input string of → > (or anything else I > choose) and inserting the relevant unicode character or > character reference. However I don't want it to do that as > then it is much harder for people to edit the document (it's > easier for machines, but I care less about machines). You are (rightly) restating that there is a user requirement out there. I am not denying the existence of that requirement. The point I am making is that the proposed solution doesnt properly solve that requirement. I believe that the problem should be regarded as a local problem of the system where a document is visualized or edited, not as a representation problem. In other words, it is an application-level problem that should be addressed by enhancing the software. For example, if there is an existing document, encoded in UTF-8, that contains a lot of "difficult" characters, some users may want to be able to display/edit that document using character names (or with the assistance of some user-interface thing that shows the name of the characters). The proposal does not address this use case. On the other hand, if somebody creates a document, encoded in UTF-8+names, that contains a lot of & n b s p ; & e a c u t e ; pseudo-references and other such bit patterns, some users may want to be able to display/edit that document with those characters (or a subset of them) shown in their usual Unicode display form. Given an XML document, consisting in a given sequence of Unicode characters (which are the same Unicode characters regardless of the encoding), why should *my* visualization preferences affect the way *you* see the document? Alessandro
|
