[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ERB Decisions of March 26th



> It must be made crystal clear that its absence implies:
> 
> o XML version 1.0 - documents complying with future versions are going
>   to have to require the declaration for disambiguation

Yes, I agree.

> o UTF-8 or UCS-2 encoding - "An entity which begins with neither a
>   Byte Order Mark nor an encoding declaration must be in the UTF-8
>   encoding."

Yes, I agree.

> o RMD of ALL - "If no RMD is provided, the effect is identical to an
>   RMD with the value ALL".  I disagree with this choice of defaults,
>   but that is the current spec.

I agree with Chris on both points here, I think.  When the latest
draft of the spec is available, we'll have to review this aspect carefully
and see what the implictions are of RMD=ALL, as I think other changes
in XML may have happened (e.g. the entity names).

If we are very clear on the Default Version, we will be able to
add PUBLIC in later if ever more than two people can agree on what it
means or does :-), and if there is ever a satisfactory way of using them
automatically over the Internet that has been deployed and tested.

In the absence of PUBLIC IDs, we will need to support the processing
instructions for links to style sheets, of course, when we get to
that part.

Lee