in reply to Re^10: Native newline encoding
in thread Native newline encoding

I said "the passage you quoted does not appear anywhere in the spec", emphasis added.

I see. So you just popped up to tell me that the text I quoted from one (linked)document, doesn't appear in some other (unreferenced) document?

Sound!

And by "the passage", I really meant any reference to being a text format at all.

Really? Then I guess you missed section "2.2 Characters" of "the spec": That I both linked and quoted elsewhere. 

2.2 Characters

[Definition: A parsed entity contains text, a sequence of characters, 
+which may represent markup or character data.] [Definition: A charact
+er is an atomic unit of text as specified by ISO/IEC 10646:2000 [ISO/
+IEC 10646]. Legal characters are tab, carriage return, line feed, and
+ the legal characters of Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646. The versions of t
+hese standards cited in A.1 Normative References were current at the 
+time this document was prepared. New characters may be added to these
+ standards by amendments or new editions. Consequently, XML processor
+s MUST accept any character in the range specified for Char. ]

[download]
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: Native newline encoding
by ikegami (Patriarch) on May 30, 2012 at 15:20 UTC

    So you just popped up to tell me that the text I quoted from one (linked)document, doesn't appear in some other

    Nope. GOTO 973180

    Really? Then I guess you missed section "2.2 Characters" of "the spec": That I both linked and quoted elsewhere.

    Nope, apparently you misread it. There's nothing about XML being a text format in there. Or are you claiming that binary formats can't contain text? That's ridiculous.

[reply]
      apparently you misread it

      I didn't misread anything. I simply quoted "the spec". Full stop.

      Or are you claiming

      I'm not "claiming" anything. I quoted "the spec". The official W3C XML specification document. Nothing more.

      So, take your puerile accusations, fetid mis-inferences, and dubious reasons for joining a long purposeless thread, back to wherever you've been hiding.

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      The start of some sanity?
[reply]

        I simply quoted "the spec"

        The first three words of the document you quoted says it's not the spec. You're blindness is growing X_X

        I quoted "the spec". The official W3C XML specification document. Nothing more.

        A complete lie. "Really? Then I guess you missed section" does not appear anywhere on the W3C site. Are you through pretending I'm talking about one thing when I'm talking about another?

        I'm not "claiming" anything.

        Then congratulations for quoting an irrelevant passage twice and for all the lovely accusations for missing it.

        take your puerile accusations

        No. I hold fast my accusation. You misread the passage you quoted if you think it mentioned anything about XML being a text format. Name calling, otoh is quite puerile.

        I shall also accuse you of not knowing the definition of puerile. No child would make such an accusation.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom