Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Carlisle wrote: >>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. ... > Either way it should be made clarer. I think that for apos and quot > at least my reading would be more useful as these would then expand to > the characters which means they are useable in non xml contexts. 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. For the purposes of XML users, +names really needs to not define < and & to be useful for them. Not defining ' and " and > is not crucial but it's certainly handy. I would argue that for most non-XML-users, having these things passed through untouched isn't really a problem, because normally these are not characters you need to escape except in the case that you plan on using the text in XML. That is to say, I can see non-XML applications finding it handy to be able to say "Martin Dürst said so." but I don't see a common use case for "Clearly in this case Ir < Is", unless you're headed for XML. So I think the current behavior - not replacing the magic five - hits a sweet spot. -Tim
|
