Re: review of conformance section and conformance language

> That was the decision I thought we made during the call.

Indeed you may have: I was plagued by tech difficulties for the first quarter of the call, and may have missed that bit.  Apologies if so.

You’re also quite correct on the valid/well-formedness bit: a bad habit on my part!  And the one part where I remembered to use the right term appears to be confusing :(

How about “a conforming grammar must produce well-formed XML”?
> (I'd have to look at the XML spec to see whether the phrase "well-formed XML character or entity" made sense; off hand, I don't think I know exactly what it means.)

How about “The number represented in a hex encoding of a character must correspond to a unicode code point that can be represented as a corresponding character or entity in a well formed XML instance.”

I do feel that it’s a reasonable minimal expectation that a grammar writer should be able to produce a well formed XML document: it seems to me that most “lay” users of XML manage that without needing an in-depth understanding of the spec.


Tomos Hillman
eXpertML Ltd
+44 7793 242058
On 9 Jun 2021, 6:40 PM +0100, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <>, wrote:
> That was the decision I thought we made during the call.

Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2021 18:50:00 UTC