Editing text

[Rick Jelliffe]

> From: James Clark <jjc at jclark.com>


> I think it would be better if well-formedness allowed simple tokenizing
> to be used, and the detailed checking of name characters was needed only
> for validity, but that's not how the spec is currently.

That sounds sensible: any chance of it James?  It was discussed before, 
but in the salad days of case insensitity. 

There have been several proposals for what grain the naming rules should
have: opinions range from "allow nearly everything" to "the grain of Unicode 
blocks" to "whatever Unicode says for identifiers" to "whatever the new
ISO report on identifiers says" to "whatever the Java function does" to
"almost nothing: just ASCII" to "lets look at each character individually 
and judge".  

Having quite a large grain (e.g., divide Unicode into 256 rows and disable
or allow whole rows {but with special treatment for row 0}) also gets 
the SGML declaration into a less daunting size.  This might be be good
enough namechecking for XML, in line with the 80% rule. 


Rick Jelliffe

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)