Paul Prescod wrote: > > Let's presume that we agreed that XML is not a language because it > doesn't have semantics. What does that have to do with the applicability > of its Unicode-handling model? > > Here is a list of a hundred specifications which we can probably agree > have "useful semantics" that are all based on XML and thus have the same > Unicode model: > > http://www.xml.org/xmlorg_registry/index.shtml > > XML's unicode model seems mostly appropriate to me. I can only see one > reason it might not apply: which comes first the #! line or the > #encoding line? We could say that the #! line can only be used in > encodings that are direct supersets of ASCII (e.g. UTF-8 but not > UTF-16). That shouldnt' cause any problems with Unix because as far as I > know, Unix can only read the first line if it is in an ASCII superset > anyhow! > > Then the second line could describe the precise ASCII superset in use > (8859-1, 8859-2, UTF-8, raw ASCII, etc.). Sounds like a good idea... how would such a line look like ? #!/usr/bin/env python # version: 1.6, encoding: iso-8859-1 ... Meaning: the module script needs Python version >=1.6 and uses iso-8859-1 as source file encoding. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4