RE: Re: Erratum in section 1.1 of Canonical XML

Hi Joseph,

The response is not sufficient since they made no mention of having
considered the point.

Immediately after the so-called definition, you provide a BNF grammar
definition of 'Document Type Definition' that indicates its equivalence
to the document type declaration.

Document Type Definition
[28]    doctypedecl 

If the authors of XML 1.0 intend to distinguish between document type
declarations and document type definitions, then they should not DEFINE
a document type definition to have the grammatical structure equivalent
to a document type declaration.  This is the point of the clarification.

John Boyer
Senior Product Architect, Software Development
Internet Commerce System (ICS) Team
PureEdge Solutions Inc. 
Trusted Digital Relationships
v: 250-708-8047  f: 250-708-8010
1-888-517-2675   http://www.PureEdge.com <http://www.pureedge.com/>  	
 	


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. [mailto:reagle@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:50 AM
To: IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG
Subject: Fwd: Re: Erratum in section 1.1 of Canonical XML


Response from the XML Core WG:

Forwarded Text ----
>Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:21:25 -0500
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>Organization: World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/)
>To: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
>CC: xml-editor@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Erratum in section 1.1 of Canonical XML
>
>"Joseph M. Reagle Jr." wrote:
> >
> > [DanC recommended I also send this question to xml-editor for a
answer to
> > the question, though CG may still need to take some action.]
> >
> > A question was recently raised with respect to Canonical XML 
> specification's
> > use of "DTD" to refer to both "document type declaration" and
"document 
> type
> > definition".
> >          http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315
>
>The XML Core WG considered this question of interpretation
>of XML 1.0, and we decided (30May2001) that the use of
>"document type declaration (DTD)" in the c14n spec is not
>consistent with the XML 1.0 spec:
>
>   [Definition: The XML document type declaration contains or
>   points to markup declarations that provide a grammar for a
>   class of documents. This grammar is known as a document
>   type definition, or DTD. ... ]
>         -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006
>
>"document type declaration" is a syntactic term; "DTD"
>is not defined to mean exactly the same thing, but rather
>to the grammar expressed in a document type declaration.
>
>As the scope of Canonical XML
>is the very details of processing characters and bytes
>of an XML document, we recommed you don't use "DTD"
>where you mean to refer to a specific piece of XML syntax;
>rather, use one of the syntactic terms from the XML
>spec such as "document type declaration."
>
>e.g. change
>
>- The XML declaration and document type declaration (DTD) are removed
>
>to
>
>+ The XML declaration and document type declaration are removed
>
>and change
>
>- Note that the XPath data model does not create comment nodes
>- for comments appearing within the document type declaration (DTD).
>
>to
>- Note that the XPath data model does not create comment nodes
>- for comments appearing within the document type declaration.
>
>(Hmm... I don't see, in the XML Canonicalization spec,
>any uses of DTD to refer to "document type definition.")
>
>
>Please let us know whether this clarification
>is satisfactory.
>
>
>The XML Core WG does not find any error in the XML 1.0
>spec related to this question of interpretation.
>
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
End Forwarded Text ----

--
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/

Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 15:10:57 UTC