Re: XML Element name Verifier is overly strict anddoesn't match current XML 1.0 REC
Elliotte Harold <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.jdom.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Michael Kay wrote: > I don't agree. While I'm definitely among those who think the XML spec > shouldn't have been changed in this way, I think the best way of minimising > the damage is for everyone now to move forward. I think the best way of minimising the damage is for everyone now to stay put. :-) But given that everyone isn't going to do anything, I think the minimal damage is to avoid putting anything that requires XML 1.1 (or 1.0.5) on the wire. That way documents produced by JDOM will have maximum interoperability. Since few people (possibly no people) actually need the changes imposed by XML > 1.0, it is better to flag any 1.0 illegal name characters as early as possible as unintentional bugs caused by character set confusion that should be corrected. It's not like the world is crying out to use musical symbols as elements names or use EBCDIC line breaks. If this ever changes, we can update then, Until such time, we'd do more harm than good by loosening the restrictions. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold [email protected] Refactoring HTML Just Published! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0321503635/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA _______________________________________________ To control your jdom-interest membership: http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/[email protected]