W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2004

Re: [Serial] I18N WG last call comments

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 17:12:39 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20040505171101.0544a780@localhost>
To: Henry Zongaro <zongaro@ca.ibm.com>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org

Hello Henry,

The I18N WG (Core TF) has looked at your response.
We can confirm that we are okay with your solution under the
assumption that the default is still the same (i.e.
omit-xml-declaration='no', i.e. it is the default to omit an
XML declaration).

Regards,    Martin.

At 11:17 04/04/13 -0400, Henry Zongaro wrote:

>Hello,
>
>      In [1], Martin Duerst submitted the following comment on the Last
>Call Working Draft of XSLT 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 Serialization on behalf of
>the I18N Working Group.
>
> > [18] Section 4.5 (XML output method, omit-xml-declaration): "The
> >    omit-xml-declaration parameter must be ignored if the standalone
> >    parameter is present, or if the encoding parameter specifies a
> >    value other than UTF-8 or UTF-16.": This disallows producing
> >    XML other than UTF-8 or UTF-16 without an xml declaration even
> >    though this is legal e.g. if served over HTTP with a corresponding
> >    charset parameter. We are not sure this is intended, and we
> >    are not sure this is a good thing. On the other hand,
> >    omit-xml-declaration must also be ignored if version is not 1.0.
>
>      Thanks to Martin and the I18N Working Group for this comment.
>
>      The XSL and XQuery Working groups discussed this comment.
>
>      Regarding the second point, although XML 1.1 requires a document
>entity to have an XML declaration, it does not require an external general
>parsed entity to have a text declaration.  The setting of the
>omit-xml-declaration parameter could still be meaningful, even if the
>version parameter has a value other than 1.0.
>
>      Regarding the first point, as originally written, XML 1.0 required an
>XML declaration or a text declaration if the encoding of the document or
>external general parsed entity was anything other than UTF-8 or UTF-16.
>XSLT 1.0 enforced that requirement in its serialization mechanism.  The
>draft of Serialization inherited that behaviour from XSLT 1.0.  However,
>an erratum to XML 1.0 removed that requirement.
>
>      In response to both points, the working groups decided that the
>Serialization specification should permit an XML declaration or text
>declaration to be omitted in precisely those circumstances in which it can
>be omitted according to XML 1.0 and XML 1.1.
>
>      In particular, the working groups decided that if the serialized
>result could be considered to be the text declaration of an external
>general parsed entity, the omit-xml-declaration parameter could have the
>value yes or the value no, and the parameter's setting would take effect.
>They further decided that if the serialized result could only be
>considered to be a document entity because
>
>   o the standalone parameter had the value yes or no; or
>   o the version parameter had a value other than 1.0 and the
>     doctype-system parameter was supplied
>
>the omit-xml-declaration parameter must have the value no.  Otherwise, a
>serialization error results.  A host language would, of course, have the
>option of ensuring such conflicts never arise through whatever
>language-specific mechanism it uses to specify serialization parameters.
>
>      May I ask the working group to confirm that that response is
>acceptable?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Henry [On behalf of the XSL and XQuery Working Groups.]
>[1]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2004Feb/0362.html
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Henry Zongaro      Xalan development
>IBM SWS Toronto Lab   T/L 969-6044;  Phone +1 905 413-6044
>mailto:zongaro@ca.ibm.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2004 08:15:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:33 GMT