In a message dated 6/3/98 3:29:08, robla@real.com wrote:
>Would something less strongly worded be appropriate? I realize that we're
>trying to make sure that the XML requirement is stated consistantly and in
>one place (the XML spec), but saying "The following cases can occur:" and
>leaving out this very important case is extremely confusing. If it needs
>to be #3, that's fine, but the current wording led to some unnecessary
>confusion around here, and I suspect that it'll lead to it elsewhere.
Forwarded message 1
Would something less strongly worded be appropriate? I realize that we're
trying to make sure that the XML requirement is stated consistantly and in
one place (the XML spec), but saying "The following cases can occur:" and
leaving out this very important case is extremely confusing. If it needs
to be #3, that's fine, but the current wording led to some unnecessary
confusion around here, and I suspect that it'll lead to it elsewhere.
Rob
At 03:34 AM 6/3/98 EDT, Phoschka@aol.com wrote:
>This was a last minute change, based on the final review by the Director
>before going to PR.
>
>A document containing a DTD may never contain extensions, since these
>extensions make it invalid with respect to the DTD - the DTD doesn't declare
>the extensions - if you run it through a validator, a document with
extensions
>will be invalid.
>
>So the text in the spec is correct as is.
>
>In a message dated 6/2/98 20:59:11, you wrote:
>
>>In the Appendix under "The following cases can occur:", the following needs
>>changing:
>>
>>From:
>> 1. The document contains a namespace declaration for the SMIL 1.0
>>specification that defines an empty prefix.
>>
>>To:
>> 1. The document contains a namespace declaration for the SMIL 1.0
>>specification that defines an empty prefix, or the document contains a
>>document type declaration for a SMIL version equal to 1.0.
>>
>>Rob
>
>
---
Rob Lanphier (robla@real.com) Voice: (206)674-2322 Fax: (206)674-2699
RTSP: http://www.real.com/rtsp SMIL: http://www.real.com/technology/smil