Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:35:09AM +0200, Oliver Meyer wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> in xml 1.1 you are allowed to have e.g.  as an attribute value. My >> xmllint does not support that version. >> Are you planning to support xml 1.1? >> >> Kind Regards, >> Oliver >> >> foo.xml= >> >> <?xml version = "1.1" encoding = "UTF-8"?> >> <foo a= ''/> > > And what is the meaning of that  ?
BEL? I don't care :-) And what is the _meaning_ of A ? It's ASCII. > My point on the subject is the following: > - 1.1 allows to dump invalid content unchecked from database without > worrying about semantic. Does this help interoperability ? No, > clean up your databases > - Also note that 1.1 rejects documents which are well-formed from > an 1.0 perspective, see production RestrictedChar, the code point > [#xE-#x1F] | [#x7F-#x84] | [#x86-#x9F] which used to be allowed as-is > will now raise a well-formedness error. > > I am part of the Working Group which created XML-1.1, there were good intents > for it like cleanup w.r.t. Unicode, but some big vendors also pushed for > allowing characters which were IMHO rightfully blocked in 1.0 . And it's > unfortunately not backward compatible. > While I would be sensible to request driven by the good intents, yours > is from my perspective due to the fact that you have not well defined data > and you would like to make this 'portable'. Please clean your data > instead of sending the problem to the next person in the food chain. > > I don't see how '' could make any sense if I received it in a > text document (yes XML is fundamentally text), maybe I need to be enlightened > ! I still don't see _why_ an XML parser have to know  or A . > But this was debated to death in the Working Group before, my opinion is > well set, and I prefer to protect my users base from the real use of 1.1 > (and thanks to the Web gods, the request to allow code point 0 was blocked !) > > In a nutshell, no, clean up your data, or use something else, if > you really want to send raw data, why not use binary directly ? That's > just fine, but don't pretend it's a text format. We use XML for the structure.. And so going somewhere else (other, binary) would be a step back. Our problem area has been ISO2709 which are converted to MARCXML (from network sources beyond our control). Right now problematic chars, say , are just thrown away. Another option to avoid data loss would for us to make _private_ semantics <char num="7"/>. / Adam > > Daniel > _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
