W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:39:33 -0500
Message-Id: <p06002011bbd462a34f96@[]>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Cc: xml-editor@w3.org

At 3:47 PM -0500 11/9/03, John Cowan wrote:

>I'm responding jointly because the answer to one message is (all
>unawares) in the other message.  The whole point of the modification to
>production 78 is precisely to forbid a text containing a RestrictedChar
>from appearing in an extParsedEntity.  It seems clear to me that the
>same modification should have been made to production 1, to forbid
>RestrictedChars from appearing in document entities; I'm not sure at
>this point why that didn't happen.

If the intent was to prevent restricted chars from appearing 
literally, I agree that this would have been an editorial change, not 
a substantive one and not a process violation. However, as actually 
written I don't think the spec does forbid restricted chars in the 
document entity, and I'm not convinced it forbids them in external 
parsed entities. (I'm not sure about that. Maybe production 78 can be 
construed to indicate that, but it's not obvious to me. I think that 
<element>#x07 and lots of other restricted chars here</element> does 
satisfy production 78.)

If the intent was to forbid literal restricted chars, then perhaps 
all that's needed is a 2nd PR that makes the necessary editorial 
fixes to say what was actually intended, and you can avoid going back 
to last call.

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2003 16:43:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:43 UTC