W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: Test cases: XML Literal value space and exclusive canonicalization

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:10:02 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20030810170728.05366f10@localhost>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, msm@w3.org

At 12:17 03/08/07 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:

>At 13:55 04/08/03 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>Yes, in particular most C0 control characters, in XML 1.0.
>>Most of that will be changed in XML 1.1. The NULL character
>>(U+0000) still isn't legal XML 1.1, as far as I know.
>
>I'm offline, so can't check, but I thought many (but not all) of the 
>control characters not allowed in XML 1.0 remained so in 1.1.

They cannot be used directly, but they can be used if encoded
as numeric character references (important to avoid some
security problems,...). See
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#sec4.1:

 >>>>
4.1 Character and Entity References

Change the Well-formedness constraint: Legal Character to read:

Characters referred to using character references must either match the 
production for Char, or be one of the ISO control characters in the ranges 
[#x1-#x1F] or [#x7F-#x9F].
 >>>>


Regards,    Martin.


>See my message ...
>
>X-Archived-At: 
>http://www.w3.org/mid/5.1.0.14.2.20030725153840.02a5ce40@127.0.0.1
>
>#g
>
>
>------------
>Graham Klyne          _________
>GK@ninebynine.org  ___|_o_o_o_|_ャ
>                    \____________/
>(nb Helva)       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   @Cliveden, River Thames
>
Received on Monday, 11 August 2003 09:55:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT