W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > January to March 2002

More comments on XML 1.0

From: MURATA Makoto <mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:12:10 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20020128.141210.68474880.mmurata@trl.ibm.com>
To: xml-editor@w3.org
- E26 in the list of errata for the second edition 
  overshadows E3 by mistake.

- E19 overshadows E7 by mistake.

- In the revision to 4.3.3 by E27, we have "any irregular code unit
  sequences".  However, if we have code unit sequences rather than
  byte sequences, we have already successfully interpreted the parsed
  entity as UTF-8.  I think that it should be replaced with "any 
  irregular byte sequences".

- Section 6.  "whose canonical (UCS-4) code value" is misleading.
  One could argue that the UCS-4 code value after character
  normalization is mentioned.

- Subsection 2.2.  When is "the time this document was prepared"?
  Publication of the first or second edition, or publication of the
  last erratum?

- The first para of 3.2.2.  "should" is vague; "it is to behave 
  as though...." in the second para is also vague.  Are XML processors 
  allowed to ignored the default?  In particular, are non-validating 
  processors allowed to ignore default values declared in internal 
  subsets?  My understanding is as follows: 

  (1)  validating processors MUST use all default values;
  (2)  non-validating processors MUST use all default values
       in internal DTD subsets (except for parameter entities); and
  (3)  non-validating processors SHOULD use other default values.
- What does "match" in the last para of 4.2.2 mean?

- The last para of 4.3.3 still contains "octet" rather than "byte".


Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 00:17:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:41 UTC