ERB Decisions of March 26th
The ERB met Wed. March 26th. All members were present except Dave Hollander,
who was represented by proxy [there had been *plenty* of advance discussion
of the items to be voted]; Peter Sharpe missed the final vote due to
having to leave early.
1. Should the spec be changed to allow attribute values (specifically the
nonterminal QuotedCData) to include unsecaped "<"?
After some discussion, we were unable to develop any consensus in favor
of re-opening this question. The spec stands as is.
2. XML requires the string ']]>' to be escaped as ']]>' when it is
data. Should the draft specify that this is 'for compatibility' only?
Unanimous: Yes, this is for compatibility only.
3. Should the XML declaration at the front of the document entity be
[Ed. note: a *lot* of discussion on this one; made more difficult that
the people who wanted it optional could see good reasons for making it
compulsory, and those who wanted it compulsory could see good reasons
for making it optional]
Optional: Bray, Clark, DeRose, Kimber, Magliery, Sharpe, Bosak
Required: Maler, Paoli, Sperberg-McQueen
So it's now optional.
4a. Should we change the way the draft spec describes when and where
parameter entity references are legal?
We have a proposal from Michael and me for major cleanups to describe 4
straightforward ways to use PE's, and much more controversial language
for another more general way to use them. The 4 straightforward ones
are going into the [imminent] draft spec, the ERB still has to chew
on the hard one.
5. Should production 69 (external ID) be changed to make the
Unanimous: leave it required.
6. In section 4.2.2 "External Entities," should the following sentences
be dropped (or modified)?
barring an external mechanism for establishing the base...
Relative URLs are relative to the location of the entity or file
within which the entity declaration occurs. Relative URLs in
entity declarations within the internal DTD subset are thus
relative to the location of the document; those in entity
declarations in the external subset are relative to the location
of the files containing the external subset.
Unanimous: leave as is.
7a. Should production 69 be changed to allow public identifiers?
No issue since DSD's has caused the ERB so much trouble. The vote
went as follows:
Yes, allow PUBLIC: Kimber, DeRose, Sperberg-McQueen, Maler, Hollander
No, no PUBLIC ID: Paoli, Sharpe, Magliery, Clark, Bray, Bosak
So in this draft, no public IDs. It should be voted that *every person*
on the No side would change their vote to Yes if there was an agreed-on
resolution mechanism for PUBLIC identifiers.
8. Should the predefined entities be removed or altered?
Proposal: Drop all predefined entities
Yes: Kimber, Bosak, Maler
No: Bray, Clark, Paoli, Sperberg-McQueen, Hollander, Sharpe, Magliery,
Proposal: Well-formed XML docs are considered to have <, >, ',
", and & predefined. Valid XML docs must have them
declared *if* they use them; the spec will give a precise
definition of what the declaration must be.
Passed unanimously. Outstanding item to get the declaration just right.
9. Should we allow and ignore the tag omission [-O] [-O] syntax? Another
close call. Pro: eases conversion and DTD management. Con:
non-functional in XML, another irritant in explaining to the world.
Yes, allow them: DeRose, Kimber, Maler, Sperberg-McQueen
No, keep it as is: Bray, Bosak, Clark, Magliery, Paoli
So no tag omission indicators for now.
Cheers, Tim Bray
firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.textuality.com/ +1-604-708-9592