[jdom-interest] XML Element name Verifier is overly
strict anddoesn't match current XML 1.0 REC
elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Mon Mar 23 09:10:34 PDT 2009
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 elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Refactoring HTML Just Published!
More information about the jdom-interest