From: Mark Davis (
Date: Wed Sep 13 2006 - 10:53:06 CDT

  • Next message: Addison Phillips: "Re: registration of dialects"

    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 <> 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 <>
    > 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