W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2003

Re: case against text/* overstated

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:31:14 -0500
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1065407474.2697.1270.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 00:30, Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Saturday, October 4, 2003, 12:40:01 AM, Dan wrote:
> 
> 
> DC> This overstates the case:
> 
> DC> "any such transcoding will make the self-description false and will
> DC> cause the document to be not well-formed."
> DC> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031001/#no-text-xml
> 
> DC> counterexample:
> DC> 	<doc/>
> DC> transcode from us-ascii to utf-8 or iso8859-1.
> DC> The result is still well-formed.
> 
> Until you do further processing, such as adding an attribute with an
> e-acute. Though you still might get lucky - its the statistical
> vagarity of the breakage that is the problem.

Then very well, let the document say that.

> And, clearly, transcoding <doc/> between UTF-8 and UTF-16 *will* cause
> non well formedness in all cases.

Or that.

> Perhaps "any such transcoding will make the self description false and
> cause the document to be not well formed <i>unless you get real
> lucky</i>"

That would correct the error as well.


> DC> Overall, I think that section is awkward and doesn't
> DC> make a very good case.
> 
> I think that section is stellar and makes a crucially important point.

I think there is an important point to be made; I don't
think factual errors are a very good way to make any
point, though.

> An architecture that encourages non-well-formed XML on the server id
> fragile, and I am strongly against any architecture that promotes it.
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 5 October 2003 22:31:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:21 GMT