Only as a result of defects in browsers. Browsers whos implementations
are consistent with the model will interpret text representations
consistently. Arguments (other than argument by assertion, as a bove)
to the contrary are welcome.
> and you do not offer a single set of entities
> that cover most of the characters in use around the world today,
I don't have to. I allow folks to use Unicode, for example.
> >> Perhaps overspecification is the price to pay for generality. The price
> >> you extract is incompatibility.
> >
> >"Sticks and stones." An unsubstantiated conjecture such as this isn't
> >worth the electrons wasted to carry it.
>
> Dan, I think you owe me an apology. The remark above is below you.
On the contrary: I took great pains to draft a document explining my
model (as did you). You posted an unsubstantiated (and I maintain:
incorrect) conjecture which might mislead folks to believe that my
model results in incompatibility. If you don't have time to back it
up, don't waste our time with the conjecture.
Dan