Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Bray wrote:
> Well, there's no doubt that +names is optimized for the needs of XML
> users, in that it defines lots of things like &eacu; but *doesn't*
> define the XML magic 5; this means that < and & and so on go
> through untouched, which is what you need for the purposes of XML users.
That's the biggest problem I have with the proposed encoding,
actually.
A human reader staring at a chunk of UTF-8+names-encoded
text can't readily tell if "&xxx;" is really (1) part of
the encoding, to be replaced by a real character before being
fed to the parser, or (2) not part of the encoding, to be
passed through to the parser unchanged; where it will then
either (2a) be interpreted as an XML entity reference or
(2b) signal an error.
I get the feeling this is just asking for trouble.
Just think of what will happen when people start publishing
RSS feeds with UTF8+names-encoded double-escaped XHTML
in the <description> element ('cause you know they will).
Now pretend you're a DPH and you see "&&&semicolon;"
in one of these feeds. Answer fast: what does that mean?
Can you write a regexp that will process it correctly?
--Joe English
jenglish@f...
|
