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

Re: More comments on XML 1.0

From: MURATA Makoto <mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:18:35 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20020218.121835.65743406.mmurata@trl.ibm.com>
To: FYergeau@alis.com
Cc: xml-editor@w3.org

Thanks for your reply.

> > - 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".
> You have been misled by the misleading Unicode terminology. "Code unit"
> means the units used to encode "code points" (character numbers).  In the
> case of UTF-8, the code unit is a byte.  Although misleading, it's good to
> have "code unit" here because it exactly matches what Unicode says.

Unicode still surprises me...

> > - Subsection 2.2.  When is "the time this document was prepared"?
> >   Publication of the first or second edition, or publication of the
> >   last erratum?
> It means exactly what it says.  For the 2nd edition, it means when that
> edition was prepared.

This means that errata cannot reference to newer versions of the
relevant specs.  Are you sure?

> Errr, yes it's a bit vague.  But what about 
> "When an XML processor encounters an element without a specification for an
> attribute for which it has read a default value declaration, it is to behave
> as though the attribute were present with the declared default value."
> ?  Now in the potential errata list.

I prefer "must" or "should" to "to behave" , since "to behave" is 


Received on Sunday, 17 February 2002 22:24:06 UTC

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