Re: [LANG] Wanted - spec lawyer.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:16 AM, John Bollinger wrote: > > > > Jörg Schaible wrote: >> As pointed out http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#charsets and >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#charsets define the valid >> characters for XML 1.0 and 1.1. >> >> However, the escape fu

Re: [LANG] Wanted - spec lawyer.

Jörg Schaible wrote: > As pointed out http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#charsets and > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#charsets define the valid > characters for XML 1.0 and 1.1. > > However, the escape functionality is actually different. If you transport > XML (or HT

Re: [LANG] Wanted - spec lawyer.

Hi Hen, Henri Yandell wrote at Dienstag, 30. Juni 2009 09:15: > Now that the StringEscape system has a foundation to support > whatever's needed (one hopes) the next step is to define exactly what > escaping XML should do. As Jörg notes in LANG-66, XML is different for > XML 1.0 and 1.1. Great, l

[LANG] Wanted - spec lawyer.

Now that the StringEscape system has a foundation to support whatever's needed (one hopes) the next step is to define exactly what escaping XML should do. As Jörg notes in LANG-66, XML is different for XML 1.0 and 1.1. Great, let's support both then. StringEscapeUtils can support the old method (fo