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

RE: More comments on XML 1.0

From: Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:28:08 -0500
Message-ID: <F7D4BDA0E5A1D14B99D32C022AEB736626D492@alis-2k.alis.domain>
To: MURATA Makoto <mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp>
Cc: xml-editor@w3.org
MURATA Makoto wrote:
> This means that errata cannot reference to newer versions of the
> relevant specs.  Are you sure?

I'm not quite following you.  The 2nd edition says the references were
current when that 2nd edition was prepared.  I don't see a problem for the
errata list to update references when updated references become available.

> > 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."
> > 
> I prefer "must" or "should" to "to behave" , since "to behave" is 
> unclear.

What about "When an XML processor... it must report the attribute with the
default value to the application." ?

Note that this allows the parser to *also* report that the attribute was
defaulted, which is a good thing since the infoset requires it!

I take it that you agree with the wording "for which it has read a default
value  declaration", instead of your list of cases?


Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 11:29:24 UTC

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