- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:50:33 -0400
- To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
I'd rather not spend time at our short f2f next week on this topic. Furthermore, I'd like to hear from those who will not be attending the f2f (Glenn, John, Jirka, Daniel). Please comment in email. paul > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-core-wg- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Grosso, Paul > Sent: Monday, 2011 October 24 11:54 > To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > Subject: TPAC topic: Errata in XML 1.0 > > We have received several potential errata against XML 1.0 5th Ed at > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2011OctDec/0000 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2011OctDec/0001 > > Both are about "ambiguity" in the productions. > > Paul asks: > Did we ever say or imply that the productions in the spec > were non-ambiguous? Is the right response to these issues > simply that we never said the productions were non-ambiguous, > and if a parser writer wants or needs to translate them into > equivalent non-ambiguous versions, that's fine, but there is > nothing wrong with the productions in the spec? >
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 14:50:59 UTC