Jonathan Robie wrote:
> 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.
>
1. Please do remember we're talking only about name characters, not the
text content of a document. The XML 1.1 proponents kept confusing this
issue the last time around too.
2. These characters are only a good idea if the documents are only
exchanged among speakers who all share the alphabet/syllabary/etc. and
the necessary fonts.
3. The real issue is undefined Unicode characters that this proposal
allows, not well-defined characters at all.
4. The other issue is well-defined characters that are not wise for use
in XML names, such as easily confusable characters, and various
punctuation marks and spacing characters.
> 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.
Actually, I personally can read it. :-)
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
