Erratum E03 (Was: Problem in exclusive canonicalization? encoding underspecified)

On Monday 30 June 2003 15:36, Martin Duerst wrote:
> Given the terseness and precision of the specification, it seems to me
> a bad idea to use both 'visible' and 'visibly utilized' with the same
> meaning, even more so as it turns out that 'visibly utilized' is already
> defined before 'visible' is used.
>
> I guess it wouldn't hurt to fix this in an erratum.

Ok, E03 proposed below:

http://www.w3.org/2002/07/xml-exc-c14n-errata#E03
|    E03 2003-07-01 (Editorial)
|           In section 1.1 Terminology, the term "visible" should
|           be replaced with the term "visibly utilized" yielding
|           "... namespace nodes that are not on
|           theInclusiveNamespaces PrefixList are expressed only
|           in start tags where they are visibly utilized and if
|           they are not in effect from an output ancestor of
|           that tag." A similar replacement in section 1.3
|           Limitations yields, "... the XML must be modified so
|           that use of the namespace prefix involved is visibly
|           utilized, or ..."