W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-guessing"

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:17:00 -0700
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20030327070430.025dbb08@localhost>
To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@allette.com.au>
Cc: <xml-editor@w3.org>

At 2003-03-22 00:10, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

>The anchor name #sec-guessing gives the entirely wrong idea.  There should be
>no guesswork involved.

There is necessarily guesswork involved -- not on the part of the
processor following the algorithm described, but certainly on the
part of the XML community, in taking as a premise the proposition
that in practice, the only character encodings with which an XML processor
will ever be confronted are those which the algorithm successfully
identifies.

There is no logical necessity for coded character sets, or character
encodings, to fall into the class of character sets for which the
algorithm works; as you will recall from the initial design discussion,
some participants offered to design a character encoding which would
defeat the algorithm.  The group decided (rightly, I believe) that
such a theoretical possibility was not enough to make the algorithm
useless in practice, since such character sets will not be found in
the wild.

>Can you change if for #sec-encoding or similar?  If there is a persistence 
>issue,
>then maybe just maintain two anchors, changin the TOC to the new one.

For what it's worth, I don't object to this change being made the next
time someone touches the document, but I confess I don't think it's
worth touching the document just to make this change; I think you are
taking the choice of IDs too seriously.  (I also confess that since I
am not longer the responsible editor, it's not really any of my business.)

Michael
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 14:26:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:32 GMT