On Jan 6, 2010, at 21:58 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >> Well, you know my concern. I want to understand the spec in order to >> implement it properly. I'm not asking for any new normative statement, nor >> any change to the existing ones. I would be fine with informative notes >> explaining the intents of some choices. For example, as you know, I'm >> implementing an SVG UA and an P&C UA, I want to know what's reusable, what's >> common without doing XML archaeology. Such notes would help me and I >> suspected it would help others. Nothing more. > > In the spec, I made that choice to be compatible with Unicode version > 5. My intention was not to break XML parsers, but it sucks if that is > what happened. I personally don't know how to proceed here.
You broke nothing, there is no problem. What these P+C rules operate on is content, which is Unicode, and therefore using Unicode's WS is perfectly sensible. I think Cyril was mostly asking about having a note explaining where this list comes from (which would have helped him find out why it's different from the list of WS chars used elsewhere). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
