RE: PIs with target "XML" etc.

I am not opposed to adding some wording to make the intent
clearer--suggest something.

The key issue would be if we don't agree on what the clear
intent should be.  My feeling is that what our tests assume
and what you said in your original email ("I think we should 
make it a fatal error") reflects the appropriate clear intent.
Daniel appears to agree.  Liam appeared to argue that the spec
didn't make it an error, but he could live with it being an 
error.

Unless someone else weighs in with an objection, I suggest
you propose some wording to add to the next edition that
we can review and approve.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Friday, 2011 February 11 10:48
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PIs with target "XML" etc.
> 
> Grosso, Paul scripsit:
> 
> > It does.  Production 23 should be considered the most
> > authoritative definition of what an XMLDecl is, and it
> > says that it must start with (lowercare) xml.  All
> > other forms do not parse against this production and
> > are therefore not XMLDecl's.
> >
> > They are therefore PIs (production 16) and the
> > miscapitalized XML is a PITarget (production 17)
> > which clearly says that a PITarget cannot be any
> > capitalization of xml.
> 
> No argument from me there.
> 
> 
> > Note "of *this* specification" meaning the XML spec,
> > and since this spec does not define any standardization
> > of XML, use of such a PITarget is not allowed by this
> > spec, so such a use is a well-formedness error.
> 
> Sorry, I can't swallow that.  Section 2.3 says:
> 
>     Names [of elements and attributes] beginning with the string
"xml",
>     or with any string which would match (('X'|'x') ('M'|'m')
> ('L'|'l')),
>     are reserved for standardization in this or future versions of
this
>     specification.
> 
> On your argument, that would mean that any use of xml: in element
> and attribute names other than xml:space and xml:lang would be a
> well-formedness error, including xml:id and xml:base, which is absurd.
> Even if you interpret "this specification" as including other W3C
> specifications, no parser throws a fatal error if you use an element
> named xml:bozo or an attribute named XML-SHOUTING.
> 
> Indeed, a fatal error exists iff the "document" production is not
> matched
> or a WFC is violated, per section 2.1.  I see no reason to believe
that
> the use of the word "reserved" makes the paragraphs in sections 2.3,
> 2.6,
> and 3 equivalent to a WFC.
> 
> --
> John Cowan        http://ccil.org/~cowan   cowan@ccil.org
> Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all.  Some caitiff rogue
> did rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits yet wander."
> An Englishman: "Ay, belike a filchman to the nab'll leave you
> crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia

Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 16:24:08 UTC