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

Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:14:20 -0500
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org, xml-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031109221420.GA15695@mercury.ccil.org>

Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:

> 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. 

Good.

> However, as actually
> written I don't think the spec does forbid restricted chars in the 
> document entity,

I'm inclined to agree, but I may be overlooking something.

> 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.)

The BNF notation a - b used in the XML Rec means "anything which matches
a but does not match b".  Your sample document clearly does match
Char* RestrictedChar Char*, and as such cannot match 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.

I'll defer this to experts in W3C process.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them
alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag
went over me.  I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am
Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider.  --Bilbo to Smaug
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2003 17:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:46 UTC