• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: UTF-8+names
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:19:32 -0700
• Cc: James Clark <jjc@j...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1ED8726@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1ED8726@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

Dare Obasanjo wrote:


>>I'm not sure I agree.  In UTF-8+names, ü could show up either 
>>as itself as ü - if you had the gear that could handle 
>>it as itself just put it in that way and you're fine. 
> 
> Why would it show up as "ü"? I agree with Alessandro and James here, it doesn't seem that your proposal does what you think it does. 

I missed an "or" in there.  In +names, ü has two possible encodings: the 
standard UTF-8 version (C3 BC if my mental UTF-8 bitshifter is right), 
and as the sequence ü.  Authors and software could choose to use 
either.

> Entities have nothing to do with schemas. It's bad enough

I agree.  This hasn't stopped people saying that they want entities but 
not DTDs.

>>The +names proposal is the only thing I could think of that had 
>>the remotest hope of giving them what they want and actually 
>>getting implemented.  
> 
> Getting implemented by whom? 

People who write XML infrastructure.

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

• References:
  • RE: UTF-8+names
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Grouping Problem
• Next by Date: RE: Game of Life: an XSLT implementation
• Previous by thread: RE: UTF-8+names
• Next by thread: RE: UTF-8+names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread