Hello Elliotte,
Just two points:
- If you are suggesting that discussion move to xml-dev, can you
please give the full address of that mailing list?
- I suggest you/we don't cross-post [EMAIL PROTECTED], because
it's not an issue the Unicode consortium has to decide.
(I'm just
is hardly productive.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 06:40
Subject: Re: XML Blueberry Requirements
At 9:35 PM +0100 6/20/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
At 9:35 PM +0100 6/20/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| In addition, XML 1.0 attempts to adapt to the line-end conventions of
| various modern operating systems, but discriminates against the
| convention used on IBM and IBM-compatible mainframes. XML 1.0 documents
| generated on mainframes must
, and a few of the other languages the proposal lists. But
I don't believe there's enough of a need to justify breaking
compatibility with existing XML parsers, software, and systems. The XML
Blueberry Requirements vastly overstate the case by ignoring the
difference between markup and text in XML
On 21/06/2001 14:37:59 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
This is going out to three mailing lists. I'd like to add a fourth
and suggest that future discussion take place on xml-dev, which
probably has the broadest reach of interested parties.
[...]
The Blueberry requirements [1] are very
At 3:20 PM +0100 6/21/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Blueberry requirements [1] are very thoughtfully written and
do *not* make any of the errors you describe. I suggest a second
reading.
I don't think I said the Blueberry requirements were in error, just
that they're wrong-headed. The
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:40:22 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
At 9:35 PM +0100 6/20/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| In addition, XML 1.0 attempts to adapt to the line-end conventions of
| various modern operating systems, but discriminates against the
| convention used on IBM and
Misha Wolf hat written::
In addition, XML 1.0 attempts to adapt to the line-end conventions of
various modern operating systems, but discriminates against the
convention used on IBM and IBM-compatible mainframes. XML 1.0 documents
generated on mainframes must either violate the local line-end
I only have one question. What do blueberries have to do with XML?
Rick
The only reason there's a problem here at all is because IBM
tried to go it alone as a monopoly and set standards by fiat for years
rather than working with the rest of the industry. Consequently their
mainframe character sets don't really interoperate well with everybody
else's character
At 4:43 PM -0400 6/21/01, John Cowan wrote:
Let me also note that it is only *parsers* that are affected by
this particular change. It does *not* require change at any level
above the parser. U+0085 (and hopefully U+2028 as well), like the
existing CR and LF and CR/LF sequences, would be
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XML Blueberry Requirements
Carl W. Brown wrote:
However, I don't understand why IBM can not support ls (U+2028) and ps
(U+2029) if Windows can. The only issue that I can see is that
they both
support a lf without cr. I guess the difference is that
Windows
See:
XML Blueberry Requirements
W3C Working Draft 20 June 2001
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-blueberry-req
| 1. Introduction
|
| The W3C's XML 1.0 Recommendation [XML] was first issued in 1998, and
| despite the issuance of many errata culminating in a Second Edition of
| 2001, has remained
13 matches
Mail list logo
