Re: XML Spec Draft of Nov. 14th; versions at Textuality

Tim Bray wrote:
> The November 14th draft is available in HTML, zipped PostScript,
> gzipped PostScript, zipped RTF, and gzipped RTF, at
>   http://www.textuality.com/sgml-erb/
Well done.

> For what it's worth, Michael and I are agreed, but the ERB hasn't
> yet considered the question, that the huge list
> of 10646 character roles should migrate into an appendix, with
> a pointer in the main text.  Aside from being hideously ugly,
> it breaks up the flow [and also, things that are in the
> appendix don't count against XML's 20-page budget.]  Does
> anyone have a reason not to do this? - Tim

Good idea.

The Technical Corrigendum (TC) to SGML on Extended Naming Rules (ENR) 
looks like it has succeeded. If so, there is now a legit SGML 
declaration possible for defining all those extra name characters,
if they are used. (EditTime editor already handles ENR/Unicode, 
if anyone is interested.) 

ENR TC is at    http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/document/1896.htm

By the way, if the XML data has been generated valid, am I right
in thinking a non-validing XML parser is completely OK with the robust
simple lexical rule that a name is anything up to a delimiter or 's' 
(after entity references in (non-CDATA) attribute values have 
been resolved)?  If so, that should be made clear in the 1.0 spec,
since it drastically simplifies things for implementors. 

Also, I think the &u form entities should just have the "u" prefix,
not the "u-" prefix. I don't think it adds anything, and, potentially
add thousands of characters to any entity declarations.


Rick Jelliffe               email:  ricko@allette.com.au
Allette Systems (Australia) email:  info@allette.com.au 
Level 10, 91 York Street    www:    http://www.allette.com.au
Sydney 2000 NSW Australia   phone:  +61 2 262 4777
                            fax:    +61 2 262 4774