Re: New Editor's Draft released

I noticed one little bug.   The definition of s omits #xD (presumably on
the basis that newline normalization gets rid of #xD's):

[27] s ::= #x9 | #xA | #x20

but char is defined in terms of s:

[28] char ::= s | ([#x21-#x10FFFF] - forbiddenChar)

and  "Characters referred to using character references MUST match the
production for char".

The net result is that 
 is incorrectly disallowed.

James


On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:53 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> In response to the comments below and other discussion, I have released
> the 2012-09-08 draft today.  The only substantive change is moving the
> discouraged characters into the syntax, making them invalid characters.
>
> James Fuller scripsit:
>
> > the section starting with;
> >
> > 'The creation of an XML subset can be justified even though the costs
> > of XML complexity have already been paid, for at least the following
> > reasons:'
> >
> > …. along with associated bullet points.
> >
> > I would consider removing … its useful material for the wiki IMHO.
>
> I'm going to keep this unless there is strong consensus otherwise.  It's
> the "why" of MicroXML, which for many people will be the most important
> thing to know first.  I did remove the bullet point referring to HTML;
> there are now no references to HTML except in the goals.
>
> > IMO we could drop some of the goals and/or combine a few;
> >
> > * combine 1) and 2)
>
> The syntax subsetting is separate from the "substantial consistency" of
> the data model.
>
> > * combine 3) and 9)
>
> Simplicity is not the same as self-containedness.
>
> > * 4), 5) and 7) could be dropped (they seem like a logical consequence
> > of other goals)
>
> Please explain in more detail.  In particular, goal 4 tells everyone
> what we are *not* trying to do, namely invade their turf.
>
> > consider creating section 1.2 Terminology, at minimum to move RFC 2119
> > boilerplate into for now
>
> A section containing one sentence seems like overkill.
>
> > ' it matches the production labeled "[1] document"'
> >
> > consider adding anchor links (throughout) …. though I see there
> > are no internal links just yet … so probably stating the bleeding
> > obvious
>
> Eventually there will be, but I want to do most of the substantive
> editing first before I add decorations, especially considering that I am
> using the HTML vocabulary directly.
>
> > consider dropping [5. Notation] and just reference somewhere
>
> There are a lot of BNF variants, and we need to explain ours, unless you
> want to reference the XML spec, which I think would be a Bad Idea.
>
> --
> John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
> Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to [Sam], a grey-clad
> moving hill.  Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes,
> but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him
> does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days
> are
> but memories of his girth and his majesty.  --"Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit"
>
>