- From: Amy Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:06:42 -0400
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
Paul (and WG), Thanks. This appears to address the issue. I'd be satisfied to see this sort of clarification supplied. Amy! On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:31:05 -0500 Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> wrote: > At 11:59 2003 06 24 -0400, Amelia A. Lewis wrote: > >On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:17:38 -0400 > >John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote: > >> Amelia A. Lewis scripsit: > >> > >> > Discussion of the issue revealed that x#D is included in S as > >part> > of compatibility with SGML; the discussion included a rather > >> > grotesque example of hackery that could get this code point to > >show> > up in a document, bypassing normalization. > >> > >> Can you provide the details? > > > >See the thread beginning at > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-blueberry-comments/2002O > >ct/0004.html(which raised this issue, I believe). > > > > From examination of that thread in the archive, it appears that the > >example of what one John Cowan referred to as "entity abuse" included > >solely for "backward compatibility" was communicated outside the > >archive. I regret that I do not appear to have retained the email > >illustrating entity abuse intended to get x#D into the stream. > > > >> I wouldn't object to adding a motherhood note to the Third Edition > >> (and a fortiori to XML 1.1). > > > >Something of the sort would make me far more comfortable with > >rejection of this issue. > > Amy, > > The XML Core WG is considering adding a note as an erratum > to XML 1.0 (thereby also incorporating it into XML 1.1) on > this subject. The suggested wording currently reads as follows: > > To be inserted just after production 3: > > Note: The presence of #xD in the above definition is > maintained purely for backward compatibility with the > First Edition. As explained in 2.11 End-of-Line Handling, > all #xD characters physically present in an XML document > are either removed or replaced by #xA characters before > any other processing is done. The only way to get #xD > characters into an XML document (as opposed to character > references) is a complex trick involving character > references within parameter entity definitions. > > In light of this, would you like to amend your response to > our resolution of Lewis-01 which is currently recorded as: > > I'm not happy with this. > > in the Disposition of Comments document at > http://www.w3.org/XML/2003/06/xml11-cr-doc.html > > regards, > > paul > > Paul Grosso for the XML Core WG > > -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 11:05:43 UTC