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

Re: XML 1.1 CR comment response for Lewis-01

From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:59:40 -0400
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Cc: pgrosso@arbortext.com, www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030624115940.46ca2c3a.alewis@tibco.com>

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/2002Oct/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.  I can understand that it was not felt necessary to add
*more* entity abuse (by including the new newlines in the S production),
but had the original spec called out the fact that x#D could only appear
as a result of sufficient entity abuse, the issue would probably not
have been raised.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 11:58:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:13:20 UTC