W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > April to June 2006

[Fwd: [Bug 3075] XML 1.0 or 1.1 user override]

From: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:41:06 -0700
To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-id: <443AFB22.9040002@yergeau.com>



-------- Message original --------
Sujet: [Bug 3075] XML 1.0 or 1.1 user override
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:33:20 +0000
De: bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Pour: francois@yergeau.com

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3075





------- Comment #3 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com  2006-04-11 00:33 -------
francois@yergeau.com writes:

> I'm afraid the comment was misunderstood.  
> The Note in the spec says that implementations 
> MAY provide the heuristic to choose 1.0 or 1.1 
> based on the input, but then SHOULD provide an 
> override of that heuristic.  If an application 
> is hard-wired for 1.0, then it will not have the 
> heuristic at all, the SHOULD -- which we argue 
> should be a MUST -- becomes non sequitur and will
> not cause the requirement of any never-executed code.

Oops. I should have checked more carefully.  Still, in spite of that
misunderstanding, I think the spirit of my original comment applies.  If the
invoking application is known always to want the heuristic applied, then 
what
business of ours is it to insist on an API that will never be used?  I 
do agree
that in practice, the amount of code involved in adding such an unused API
switch will be lower than adding a whole new type system, but it's still a
complexity about which I think the schema spec should say little if 
anything.

I have always believed that our main purpose in Parts 1 and 2 should be to
define the language and its interpretation, and not the packaging of or
interface to processors.  I do think it makes sense in principle to
>separately< document processor APIs and packagings that are likely to be of
common use.  Still, I generally expect to see programming languages 
documented
separately from the APIs, command line switches, or debug options of their
compilers.  I think similar considerations apply here.

Noah
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 00:41:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:50 GMT