• From: richard@i... (Richard Tobin)
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 23:10:38 +0000 (GMT)

In article <459C188E.1000408@a...> you write:
>I think it is confusing to speak in terms of escaping, 
>because it is used in opposite meaning of what it originally meant. 

Originally, but not any more.  They changed the language while you were
looking the other way.

>With 
>a numeric character reference, you are not escaping a literal character, 
>you are using a different method to represent it: in just the same way 
>that \n is not a character escape, &#10; is neither.

And here we have the proof: it is now quite common to describe \n as a
way of escaping linefeed.

A more historically consistent interpretation would be to say that
&#...; is an escape sequence that changes the meaning of the 10
contained in it, so that it means character number 10 rather than
"10" itself.

-- Richard
-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

• References:
  • XML: why there is no escape (was Re: What to escape whenserializing XML)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>