W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org > July 2003

Re: XML 1.1 CR comment response for Lewis-01

From: Amy Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:06:42 -0400
To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Cc: www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030715110642.3d8bacc6.alewis@tibco.com>

Paul (and WG),

Thanks.  This appears to address the issue.  I'd be satisfied to see
this sort of clarification supplied.

Amy!
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:31:05 -0500
Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> wrote:

> At 11:59 2003 06 24 -0400, Amelia A. Lewis wrote:
> >On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:17:38 -0400
> >John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:
> >> Amelia A. Lewis scripsit:
> >> 
> >> > Discussion of the issue revealed that x#D is included in S as
> >part> > of compatibility with SGML; the discussion included a rather
> >> > grotesque example of hackery that could get this code point to
> >show> > up in a document, bypassing normalization.
> >> 
> >> Can you provide the details?
> >
> >See the thread beginning at
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-blueberry-comments/2002O
> >ct/0004.html(which raised this issue, I believe).
> >
> > From examination of that thread in the archive, it appears that the
> >example of what one John Cowan referred to as "entity abuse" included
> >solely for "backward compatibility" was communicated outside the
> >archive.  I regret that I do not appear to have retained the email
> >illustrating entity abuse intended to get x#D into the stream.
> >
> >> I wouldn't object to adding a motherhood note to the Third Edition
> >> (and a fortiori to XML 1.1).
> >
> >Something of the sort would make me far more comfortable with
> >rejection of this issue. 
> 
> Amy,
> 
> The XML Core WG is considering adding a note as an erratum 
> to XML 1.0 (thereby also incorporating it into XML 1.1) on
> this subject.  The suggested wording currently reads as follows:
> 
>   To be inserted just after production 3:
> 
>         Note:  The presence of #xD in the above definition is
>         maintained purely for backward compatibility with the
>         First Edition.  As explained in 2.11 End-of-Line Handling,
>         all #xD characters physically present in an XML document
>         are either removed or replaced by #xA characters before
>         any other processing is done.  The only way to get #xD
>         characters into an XML document (as opposed to character
>         references) is a complex trick involving character
>         references within parameter entity definitions.
> 
> In light of this, would you like to amend your response to
> our resolution of Lewis-01 which is currently recorded as:
>   
>   I'm not happy with this.
> 
> in the Disposition of Comments document at
> http://www.w3.org/XML/2003/06/xml11-cr-doc.html
> 
> regards,
> 
> paul
> 
> Paul Grosso for the XML Core WG
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 11:05:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 12:11:47 GMT