[jdom-interest] XML Element name Verifier is overly strict anddoesn't match current XML 1.0 REC

[Elliotte Harold]

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!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0321503635/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA