- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:02:48 +0100
- To: jcowan@reutershealth.com
- CC: ricko@allette.com.au, www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>> Why not try that minimal solution first, and see if it works? >> >> (And why not do it as a corrigendum rather than 1.1) > I keep telling you why. Because it changes the definition of well-formedness. > A document like "<foo<NEL>bar=baz> is not WF XML 1.0, but it is WF XML 1.1. why not mandate that such a file has an encoding declaration with a suitable encoding, then you wouldn't even a corrigendum. The example of cross mounting the file via an NFS that isn't doing line ending mappings seems pretty week. If you are in such a situation the file won't be line based on one side of the nfs mount or the other, whatever you do in 1.1. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 12:03:24 UTC