Hi Elliotte, > Not everyone, While I like more scripts in name characters, I for one > don't agree that not explicitly specifying the set of UNICODE characters > that can be used in names is an improvement.
In that case, what about releasing a series of errata to expand the set of UNICODE characters that can be used in names, as new scripts are added? That would be consistent with the goals of my proposal, which were to allow parsers to be upgraded incrementally to support new scripts, without breaking backwards compatibility with XML 1.0. This would be like the change made in the third edition of XML 1.0, where entities were permitted to begin with a UTF-8 BOM, something that was not explicitly mentioned in earlier revisions of the spec. The change was backwards compatible, and was easily added to existing parsers without breaking anything. (And to be honest, I doubt that more than one or two revisions of the spec would be necessary; while there may be a case for writing markup in Mongolian, there probably isn't much demand for writing markup in Elvish or Cuniform or whatever). Best regards, Michael -- Print XML with Prince! http://www.princexml.com _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
