Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>
>> Why do all this work? A character is a character is a character,
>> except for certain well known ranges. The more we try to interpret
>> the more obscure characters, the more trouble we get into.
>>
>
>
> Because XML is supposed to be human readable and interoperable.
Who gets to define the human?
> This means:
>
> 1. Undefined, unprintable characters are very bad.
> 2. Characters that someone doesn't have a font for are bad.
Agreed, but well-defined Unicode characters for which *someone* has a
font are very good for the people who use that data, even if *you* don't
have a font for it.
> 3. Unrecognized characters from languages the audience doesn't speak
> are bad.
I'm guessing you didn't mean that to say what I just understood it to
say. Surely you don't object to me putting Greek in a file even if you
personally can't read it.
Jonathan
