Good practice ? Empty content in element - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Is € illegal or just frowned upon?

Henri Sivonen wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

 From the Unicode perspective, it is inappropriate to use a code point
assigned to a specific character (though just a control character of
unspecified meaning) for private purposes, since there is a rich supply
of code points designated as Private Use characters.

I cannot really tell what it means to say that a reference, like €,
refers to a specific character, yet declaring it as undefined. But
there's no logical reason why SGML or XML could not be used to deal with
data that may contain U+0080, for use as control character according to
some standard, specification, or agreement. I think a sensible
interpretation of "undefined" is that no specific behavior is mandated
or guaranteed, rather than as any kind of prohibition.

Re: Is € illegal or just frowned upon?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Error - - - - - - - - -^^^^^^

I'm surprised to find that even you, who is rather active in the field,
has fallen for this false statement in the XML spec.

XML was originally defined as a different profile of SGML markup,
different in the respect that XML was defined in an SGML declaration
that was very different from the "Concrete Reference Syntax" of SGML.

If you mark up doc instances according to the rules in that original
SGML declaration for XML you can use the full range of the SP tool set
to process your documents in the same way as you would do for any other
SGML doc instance. And architectural processing will work if you make
use of it as will those processing instructions you may need in your

As a side note it could be mentioned that DSSSL is also defined in an
SGML declaration of its own, and yes, a correctly written DSSSL program
will validate as a true SGML document instance.

XML was _not_ set up to be a "subset" of anything at all, the word
subset is written in the spec by some one that lacks knowledge of
concept. The original wording was that XML was defined as a separate
_profile_ of SGML, similar to DSSSL which is also defined as a separate
profile of SGML. Calling XML a "subset" of something is just plain dumb.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It would be even better if the XML spec did not mention SGML at all.


Site Timeline