W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Inaccuracy in Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)

From: Michael Glavassevich <mrglavas@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:56:03 -0500
To: xml-editor@w3.org
Cc: vsugrob@hotmail.com
Message-ID: <OF385E9945.6B287603-ON8525799C.00149AE8-8525799C.00159BB1@ca.ibm.com>
You've haven't found an error. [33] through [38] existed but were removed a
long time ago. See the rationale here:
http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-19980210-errata#E73

After removing them, I would assume the original numbering was maintained
to avoid confusion and to allow numerical references from other documents
to continue pointing to the productions they intended.

Michael Glavassevich
XML Technologies and WAS Development
IBM Toronto Lab
E-mail: mrglavas@ca.ibm.com
E-mail: mrglavas@apache.org

Vitaliy Sugrobov <vsugrob@hotmail.com> wrote on 02/05/2012 08:04:53 PM:

> Hi. I read document located at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/ and
> noticed error in numbering of rules given in EBNF.
> Here we have
>
> [32]
>
> SDDecl
>
>    ::=
>
> S 'standalone' Eq (("'" ('yes' | 'no') "'") | ('"' ('yes' | 'no') '"'))
>
> [VC: Standalone Document Declaration]
>
> and then we expect next rule to be numbered [33], but we get [39]
instead:
>
> [39]
>
> element
>
>    ::=
>
> EmptyElemTag
>
> | STag content ETag
>
> [WFC: Element Type Match]
>
> [VC: Element Valid]
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 04:00:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 February 2012 04:01:01 GMT