W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > February 2006

Paul's review of John and Henry's 2119-ification

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:47:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CF83BAA719FD2C439D25CBB1C9D1D3020262B8DD@HQ-MAIL4.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

 
> > ACTION to Henry [due Feb 22]:  Review the MAYs again and 
> > create a marked up version with changes.
> 
> Henry produce a version at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml
> 
> Norm looked at it and approved it.
> 
> ACTION to John, Paul:  Review what Henry did.

I'm no expert in this 2119-ification, but I noted
two places where the suggested change wasn't of
obvious need to me.

In the third to last paragraph of
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml#sec-normalization
-checking
it says:
 XML applications ... SHOULDshould ensure that the
 output is fully normalized; 

This draft is changing SHOULD to should.  

*** Oh, nevermind, I just realized this is one of
the cases John also reversed on, so it seems we
agree this should go back to SHOULD.

In the penultimate paragraph of
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2006/02/xml11-20060222.xml#sec-external-ent
where there is the defn of public identifier, we have:
 An XML processor ... MAYmay use any combination of the
 public and system identifiers ....

The draft is changing MAY to may.  Is this because
the statement isn't constraining anything, but rather
is just saying that what a processor might end up doing?
I guess I'd like to be sure I understand why this
shouldn't be a 2119 SHOULD.

paul
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 22:47:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:33 GMT