- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 06:33:30 -0700
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
> However, the fact remains: every document that was a well-formed > XML 1.0 document was also a well-formed XML 1.0 2nd edition > document. Every document that was not a well-formed XML 1.0 > document was also not a well-formed XML 1.0 2nd edition document. > Ditto for validity. In addition to new validity constraints (John mentioned) ... ... there was discussion recently about whether UTF-8 BOM got declared to be legal in 2nd edition. A non-normative section now says so, as does the UDDI spec in some cases; SOAP-friendliness sems to demand changing the definition of WF-ness to permit a UTF-8 BOM in 2nd ed "plus errata" (or removing the UTF-8 BOM from the non-normative section, fixing UDDI, etc). That'd be a change from being a WFness error to being WF. - Dave
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 09:34:29 UTC