- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:27:03 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-tag@w3.org
At 11:30 07/09/04 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: >Several weeks ago, I took an action item to turn the email I drafted >about XML chunk equality into a finding. Here's a first editor's draft >of such a finding. > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/xmlChunkEquality.html > > Be seeing you, > norm A couple of comments... Section 2.3: You explicitly exclude xml:lang, but don't mention xml:base here, though you mention above that xml:base attributes are excluded for xml:base-conformant applications. I'm tending to think that it might be simpler to simply exlcude xml:base from consideration: if an application is xml:base conformant then its effect is on the rest of the infoset as expected. For applications that are not xml:base conformant, isn't the attribute meaningless anyway? (Which suggests to me that documents that differ only in xml:base attributes convey the same information as far as such an application is concerned.) Section 2.8: It seems counter-intuitive to me that document that differ only in their comments are different in the sense you outline in section 1 -- to me, for most applications of XML, they would convey the same information. Ah... I see you address this in section 3. Hmmm... Now I'm beginning to wonder if a variable "cookbook recipe" like this is truly an _architectural_ finding (which comment should not be read as implying it is not useful). #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 08:01:51 UTC