Re: DRAFT comment on 3023-bis

Henry,

Note that you are replying to my draft comment which,
in fact, mostly contains John Cowan's comments.

The full set of his original comments is at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Sep/0019
and my set of (editorial) comments is at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2013Sep/0010
(as indicated in the last few agendas/minutes emails).

Those two emails are what you should be addressing.

paul


On 2013-10-16 12:38, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Paul Grosso writes:
>
>> 1. In Section 3, the sentence beginning "Thus, although all XML
>> processors" says "(except for HTTP)", but should say "(except for HTTP,
>> HTTPS, and other protocols if base64 transport encoding is in use)".
>> This is spelled out later in the document.
> Overtaken: the enclosing list has been deleted
>
>> 2. In Section 3, "Furthermore, such media types may allow UTF-8 or UTF-16
>> only and prohibit other charsets" has a misplaced "only" which makes
>> it unclear; it should read "Furthermore, such media types may forbid
>> charsets other than UTF-8 (or other than UTF-8 or UTF-16)".
> Changed (silently) to "may allow only UTF-8 and/or UTF-16 and prohibit..."
>
>> 3. In Section 3.6 there is another problematic "only" and a bad comma: for
>> "The charset parameter MUST only be used, when the charset is reliably
>> known and agrees with the in-band XML encoding declaration" read "The
>> charset parameter MUST NOT be used if the charset is not reliably known.
>> If it is used, it MUST agree with the XML encoding declaration."
> Overtaken, in part, and in part we disagree.  The para. in question
> now reads:
>
>    The charset parameter MUST NOT be used unless the charset is
>    reliably known.  This information will be used by all processors to
>    determine authoritatively the charset of the XML MIME entity in the
>    absence of a BOM.
>
>> 4. In Section 4, the sentence "Similarly, when converting from another
>> encoding into "utf-16", the BOM MUST be added after conversion is
>> complete" is incorrect; it should read, "Similarly, when converting
>> from another encoding into "utf-16", either an appropriate encoding
>> declaration MUST be added or modified, or a BOM MUST be added."
> I wrote it that way because 4.3.3 in the XML spec [1] says
>
>     "Entities encoded in UTF-16 *must* . . .begin with the Byte Order Mark"
>
> So I don't think a change is appropriate.
> ----------
> I have added the four comments and my dispositions to the Disposition
> of Comments -- the changes won't be visible until the next version.
>
> ht
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#charencoding
> [2] http://www.w3.org/XML/2012/10/3023bis/02-comments.html

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 18:18:27 UTC