W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > January to March 1999

[yergeau@alis.com: More errata]

From: C M Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:03:28 -0600
Message-Id: <199903171703.LAA249056@tigger.cc.uic.edu>
To: xml-editor@w3.org
CC: cmsmcq@acm.org
If this erratum in 4.3.3 is not on the list of known errata, it
should be.

-C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Return-Path: <w3c-xml-syntax-wg-request@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 15:39:51 -0500
From: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
X-Sender: yergeau@www.alis.com
To: w3c-xml-syntax-wg@w3.org
Cc: mduerst@w3.org
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Subject: More errata
Resent-From: w3c-xml-syntax-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <w3c-xml-syntax-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/645
X-Loop: w3c-xml-syntax-wg@w3.org
Sender: w3c-xml-syntax-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: w3c-xml-syntax-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

À 10:20 02/03/99 +0900, Martin J. Duerst a écrit :
>Section 4.3.3 says that the BOM defined in Appendix B of Unicode,
>which may have been true for Unicode 1.X, but is not true for Unicode
>2, which is referenced in the Appendix. I pointed this out very close
>to going to REC, but it was not corrected. As far as I remember, the
>corresponding Appendix in ISO 10646 that is mentionned might also be
>worth checking.

I checked.

The 10646 annex about the BOM is Annex F, not E.  In Unicode, it is in
section 2.4, not in Appendix B.


- -- 
François
------- End of forwarded message -------
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 1999 12:03:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:29 GMT