• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:01:01 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3FB06A75.8030809@a...>
• References: <20031109204707.GA6478@m...><p06002011bbd462a34f96@[192.168.254.4]><20031109221420.GA15695@m...><3FB06A75.8030809@a...>

At 3:49 PM +1100 11/11/03, Rick Jelliffe wrote:


>So the argument against literal C0 characters is that inband control 
>characters
>are transmission artifacts that have no place literally in data. Use 
>references
>to get the character but escape the control semantic.

There's also the argument that C0 controls may accidentally control 
something. There are still a few old printers here and there that 
will break a page on a form feed. There might even be some gateways 
that use the C0's for other purposes.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • Re: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• References:
  • Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Challenge : An XML Form-Filling system for the WWW
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread