Re: Moving XML 1.0 5e forward: suggestions arising from the Call for Review

Henry S. Thompson scripsit:

>  1) - Appendix J would be better if it suggested that all names comply
>       with normalization form C (<http://unicode.org/reports/tr15/>)

Indeed, we should probably say that normalization form KC should be used,
since we already recommend against compatibility characters (in KC,
compatibility characters are changed to their decompositions).

>     - Item 4 in Appendix J will have regional exceptions. A couple of
>       regional exceptions are already listed, but those should be viewed
>       as example exceptions rather than unique ones. For example, Eszett
>       is still used in some Germanic regions (but not all)

"Some but not all" meaning "everywhere but Switzerland".  But I don't
understand the relevance of the given example, as U+00DF LATIN SMALL
LETTER SHARP S is not a compatibility character.

>  This fifth edition is not a new version of XML. As a convenience to
>  readers, it incorporates the changes dictated by the accumulated
>  errata (available at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-4e-errata) to the
>  Fourth Edition of XML 1.0, dated 16 August 2006. In particular,
>  erratum [E09] relaxes the restrictions on element and attribute
>  names, thereby providing in XML 1.0 the major end user benefit
>  currently achievable only by using XML 1.1.  As a consequence, many
>  documents not well-formed according to previous editions of this
>  specification are now well-formed.

To which we should add, per Eric vdV's comment, ", and many documents
which were well-formed but not valid according to previous editions
of this specification are now valid."

-- 
Work hard,                                      John Cowan
play hard,                                      cowan@ccil.org
die young,                                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
rot quickly.

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 13:57:57 UTC