At 03:24 PM 5/24/2007 -0700, Grant Baillie wrote:
On 24 May, 2007, at 15:16, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 02:58 PM 5/24/2007 -0700, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
Morgen Sagen wrote:
> #3 feels like the right thing to do. One suggestion is to
encode all
> non-allowed by XML characters using %XX where the XX are hex
digits.
> Should we take that route?
I said this on IRC, posting here to keep everyone in the loop.
I think characters not allowed should be encoded with the standard
XML
way, for example ©.
Characters that are not allowed can't be encoded in this way -
that's what it means that they're not allowed. The resulting XML
is not well-formed, by definition.
In XML 1.1, those characters are merely "Restricted" ... the grammar
seems to have changed some. I think that's the reasoning behind the
summarization in <http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200701/
msg00011.html>:
1-1F except CR, TAB, NL:
Can't occur in XML 1.0. Can occur in XML 1.1 and must be escaped.
Note, however, that XML 1.1 still doesn't allow NULs... so even if
we go with 1.1 and XML escaping, we still have to do something about
NUL, and any other disallowed characters.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
