Re: XmlTextWriter Encodes HTML Entities?
- From: "clintonG" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 11:19:09 -0500
"Bjoern Hoehrmann" <bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4tuo539ctpg81mok0gqb38r980cqg7aaft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
* clintonG wrote in microsoft.public.dotnet.xml:
I understand what W3C documents say but XML and HTML derive from SGML and
there are some semantic ambiguities in this context in the W3C documents.
Most of us and most documentation including W3C documentation define &
as an HTML character entity. When we get to the W3C page(s) for XML they
drop the verbiage "HTML" when describing character entities.
It would be very confusing otherwise. As an example, ' is valid in
XML but not part of HTML, while ö is part of HTML but not of XML;
so if you speak about the pre-defined entities in XML you refer to five,
if you speak about those in HTML you refer to hundreds of them.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Nobody argues that point Björn except to say the correct use of the English
language used in a formal document requires the use of "narrative" and
"expository" use of the grammar which we native speakers of English are
taught in grade school.
I value consistency in technical documentation which is considered a formal
use of the language. Consistency should not be compromised for the sake of
brevity which in this context results in the obfuscation of terminology. I
mean what are we talking about being needed here? A single paragraph of
narrative supported by a single expository table of five rows to resolve an
apparent contradiction which is not a contradiction at all?
Sometimes the people on the W3C working groups do not always make the best
decisions and are not neccessarily known for their mastery of the English
language which is said to be the most difficult language to master. That
said, over the years having observed how software developers will quibble
with one another for weeks or perhaps months about a single term and its
meaning I'm genuinely surprised this discrepancy has become over-looked.
<%= Clinton
.
- Prev by Date: Re: CDATA in RSS title and description?
- Next by Date: [Announce] Release 3 of Altova 2007 XML product line
- Previous by thread: Re: CDATA in RSS title and description?
- Next by thread: [Announce] Release 3 of Altova 2007 XML product line
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
