W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

Infoset CR 14 May 2001 comments

From: Steve Rowe <sarowe@textwise.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:24:16 -0400
To: <www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NCBBJHNPJKLDEEEJDICPCEOPDCAA.sarowe@textwise.com>
Hello,

Following is a list of small issues with the latest
Candidate Recommendation of XML Infoset (14 May 2001):

1. Under "Status of this Document", the semicolon in

      Comments should be sent to
      www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org; An archive ...

   should be changed to a period, or the "A" in "An" should
   be downcased.

2. In the "Entities" section under "1. Introduction", a
   comma inbetween the words "does" and "may" would
   increase the readability of the second to last sentence:
   
      ... and even if it does may not expand all external
      entities.

3. In the "Base URIs" section under "1. Introduction",
   the second [XML Base] reference should be hyperlinked,
   just as the first is.  Because [references] and
   [properties] share the same syntax (without the
   hyperlink), this could otherwise be confusing.

4. In the description of the [children] property of the
   document information item (section 2.1), the words
   "information item" should not be hyperlinked along
   with the rest of the term:

      ... document type declaration information item.

5. The second sentence of the fourth reporting requirement
   under "Appendix B" appears to be superfluous.  At the
   least, it's grammatically incorrect: the subject of the
   clause beginning "the value of attributes" does not
   agree in number with the predicate "are passed ...".
   From section 3.3.3 of the XML Recommendation:

      Before the value of an attribute is passed to the
      application or checked for validity, the XML
      processor must normalize the attribute value ...
      such that the value passed to the application is
      the same as that produced by the algorithm [given
      below].

   There is no implication or other indirect language here;
   the recommendation clearly states that it is the
   normalized values that are passed to the application.

6. The tenth reporting requirement under "Appendix B"
   should begin "A validating XML processor", rather than
   "An XML processor"; attribute defaults are not required
   reading for non-validating processors.  Also, the XML
   Recommendation reference at the end of this requirement
   should read "(3.3.2)" instead of "(3.2.2)".

7. The 20th item under "Appendix D" looks like it's just
   wrong, and should be removed.  It is in direct conflict
   with the tenth reporting requirement under "Appendix B".


Hope it helps,

Steve Rowe
MNIS-TextWise Labs
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 16:25:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:50 UTC