Re: base-spec issue #1: character escapes

Hi Rob,

--On March 8, 2005 12:02:27 PM -0500 Rob Siemborski <rjs3(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu> 
wrote:
> > While (3) is a cleaner design, introducing a dependency on variable
> > create the possibility that some implmentation that doesn't want
> > to implement variables but needs access to NUL, etc will do (1) or
> > (2) instead, thus defeating the goal of interoperability.  If that
> > is a plausible risk, then (2) or (1) should be picked from the
> > start.
> >
> > I therefore would prefer (2).
> Same here.
With (2), do we even need to make the statement that an extension will 
override the base spec behaviour? After all, that is what extensions 
implicitly do. i.e. why can't we leave it exactly as it is now in the base 
spec, and an extension written independently of that.
--
Cyrus Daboo