Re: Test cases: XML Literal value space and exclusive canonicalization

Oh... I missed that.  This maybe changes my analysis of special characters 
in RDF/XML literals, but I don't think that really matters now.

#g
--

At 17:10 10/08/03 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote:
>At 12:17 03/08/07 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>>At 13:55 04/08/03 -0400, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>>Yes, in particular most C0 control characters, in XML 1.0.
>>>Most of that will be changed in XML 1.1. The NULL character
>>>(U+0000) still isn't legal XML 1.1, as far as I know.
>>
>>I'm offline, so can't check, but I thought many (but not all) of the 
>>control characters not allowed in XML 1.0 remained so in 1.1.
>
>They cannot be used directly, but they can be used if encoded
>as numeric character references (important to avoid some
>security problems,...). See
>http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#sec4.1:
>
> >>>>
>4.1 Character and Entity References
>
>Change the Well-formedness constraint: Legal Character to read:
>
>Characters referred to using character references must either match the 
>production for Char, or be one of the ISO control characters in the ranges 
>[#x1-#x1F] or [#x7F-#x9F].
> >>>>
>
>
>Regards,    Martin.
>
>
>>See my message ...
>>
>>X-Archived-At: 
>>http://www.w3.org/mid/5.1.0.14.2.20030725153840.02a5ce40@127.0.0.1
>>
>>#g
>>
>>
>>------------
>>Graham Klyne          _________
>>GK@ninebynine.org  ___|_o_o_o_|_$B%c(B
>>                    \____________/
>>(nb Helva)       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   @Cliveden, River Thames
>
>------------
>Graham Klyne          _________
>GK@ninebynine.org  ___|_o_o_o_|_¬
>                    \____________/
>(nb Helva)       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   @Kingston, River Thames

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 07:52:50 UTC