RE: Unicode references

Hello Ashok,

I'm very sorry that I missed "2.2. Alignment of references" in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Aug/0003.html.

At 05:32 03/10/20 -0700, Ashok Malhotra wrote:

>Martin:
>
>The refernce below includes:
>
>"2.2. Alignment of references
>
>     XML Schema and the Functions and Operators spec should refer to the
>     same version of Unicode. At the moment, this appears not to be
>true."

Given the distinction between generic references and specific
versioned references explained in a previous mail, this request
seems to be too general.

If the references in XML Schema and Functions and Operators are
generic, then refering to different versions is only a cosmetic
difference, and insisting on using the same reference will make
this reference less available for users of the new spec.

If in some cases, the reference is specific (I haven't found
such a reference in XML Schema), then the details of this
reference should be discussed, rather than just making general
requests.


Regards,   Martin.



> >>The XML Schema WG asked that the references to Unicode be consistent.
> >>See
> >><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Aug/0003.h>> 
> tml> h
> >>ttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2003Aug/0003.htm
> >>l
>
>All the best, Ashok
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 7:26 AM
> > To: Ashok Malhotra; w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org; w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org
> > Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org; msm@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Unicode references
> >
> > Some additions:
> >
> > At 16:09 03/10/17 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote:
> >
> > >At 08:28 03/10/16 -0700, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> >
> > >>The XML Schema WG asked that the references to Unicode be
>consistent.
> > See
> > >><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-> 
> comments/2003Aug/0003.html>
> > >>h ttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-
> > comments/2003Aug/0003.html
> > >
> > >I have looked through this document. I have not found any such
>request.
> > >(I have copied Michael Sperberg-McQueen, maybe he can help)
> > >The closest I have found is
> > >http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/07/xmlschema-fo-comments.html#d0e327
> > >This refers to the fact that Unicode 2.0 and Unicode 3.0 do not
> > >clearly outlaw encoding of non-BMP characters in six bytes (using
> > >two surrogate codepoints).
> > >
> > >If the intent of the XML Schema WG was to request that XML Query
> > >should in any way tolerate such encoding, then this would not
> > >be appropriate. XML 1.0 references RFC 2279 (see
> > >http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-external-ent), which is already
> > >clear that non-BMP characters have to be encoded as four bytes.
> > >This would also be a bad idea given that there are known security
> > >problems connected with overlong UTF-8 byte sequences,
> >
> > Please note the erratum
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata#E27, which also makes
> > clear that XML doesn't allow overlong/irregular encodings.
> >
> >
> > Regards,   Martin.

Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 16:16:39 UTC