I agree.
Mark
—————
πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπος — Πρωταγόρας
[http://www.macchiato.com]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark@macchiato.com>; "John Cowan"
<jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Cc: <unicode@unicode.org>; "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@garshol.priv.no>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 23:52
Subject: Re: Is there Unicode mail out there?
> I think that the right solution, if we could redo things, would
> be to allow something like  in content, but to never use
> the actual byte values. This would allow the data guys to stream
> stuff, and could leave the document guys reasonably unconcerned.
> Of course then pattern restrictions on mixed content (which we
> currently don't have) would become really helpful.
>
> Regards, Martin.
>
> At 08:07 01/07/18 -0700, Mark Davis wrote:
> > > I wouldn't want any control codes in a database. Having a control-G
> > > may be funny (the joke as I know it goes back to Don Knuth), but
> > > something like a control-S is too much of a risk.
> >
> >*You* wouldn't want?
> >
> >There are a lot of characters *I* wish were not in databases, or in use
at
> >all. A lot of them may or may not make sense. Whether or not I want them,
> >someone can have a database where they are allowed. By having this
> >(inconsistent) restriction, it simply means I can't be guaranteed full
> >round-tripping from databases to XML and back, no matter what their
> >content.
> >
> >Of course, this is not a huge restriction -- it is simply a gratuitous
> >annoyance. One could even live with something much more onerous, say XML
> >disallowing all characters whose code points were divisible by 4321 --
just
> >have complicated DTDs and shift into base64 if you encounter any of those
> >codes.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jul 19 2001 - 11:31:44 EDT