From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2006 - 10:53:06 CDT
As I recall, the problem with XML 1.1 adoption was that XML 1.1 was
not fully backwards compatible with XML 1.0: there were XML 1.0
documents that were not valid XML 1.1. That being the case, people
just didn't see it worthwhile to have two incompatible parsers.
As for ZWJ/NJ - the original intent was for these to not make any
semantic difference. There is a UTC action to collect cases where they
are being used to make a clear semantic difference (eg XXX means "sea
gull" and XX<ZWNJ>X means "republican"), so any feedback on such cases
would be useful.
On 9/13/06, John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela scripsit:
> > In XML 1.1, ZWJ and ZWNJ are allowed in identifiers, but this is
> > probably of little practical value.
> It has the merit that it allows identifiers to be spelled correctly
> in the various languages that *require* ZWJ or ZWNJ or both; Persian
> and several Indic languages come to mind.
> If you meant simply that XML 1.1 is not widely adopted, and it is
> therefore of little practical value to write documents in it, I
> must sadly agree.
> John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan <email@example.com>
> You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
> You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
> Clear all so! `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 13 2006 - 11:00:05 CDT