- From: Steve Rowe <sarowe@textwise.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:24:16 -0400
- To: <www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org>
Hello, Following is a list of small issues with the latest Candidate Recommendation of XML Infoset (14 May 2001): 1. Under "Status of this Document", the semicolon in Comments should be sent to www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org; An archive ... should be changed to a period, or the "A" in "An" should be downcased. 2. In the "Entities" section under "1. Introduction", a comma inbetween the words "does" and "may" would increase the readability of the second to last sentence: ... and even if it does may not expand all external entities. 3. In the "Base URIs" section under "1. Introduction", the second [XML Base] reference should be hyperlinked, just as the first is. Because [references] and [properties] share the same syntax (without the hyperlink), this could otherwise be confusing. 4. In the description of the [children] property of the document information item (section 2.1), the words "information item" should not be hyperlinked along with the rest of the term: ... document type declaration information item. 5. The second sentence of the fourth reporting requirement under "Appendix B" appears to be superfluous. At the least, it's grammatically incorrect: the subject of the clause beginning "the value of attributes" does not agree in number with the predicate "are passed ...". From section 3.3.3 of the XML Recommendation: Before the value of an attribute is passed to the application or checked for validity, the XML processor must normalize the attribute value ... such that the value passed to the application is the same as that produced by the algorithm [given below]. There is no implication or other indirect language here; the recommendation clearly states that it is the normalized values that are passed to the application. 6. The tenth reporting requirement under "Appendix B" should begin "A validating XML processor", rather than "An XML processor"; attribute defaults are not required reading for non-validating processors. Also, the XML Recommendation reference at the end of this requirement should read "(3.3.2)" instead of "(3.2.2)". 7. The 20th item under "Appendix D" looks like it's just wrong, and should be removed. It is in direct conflict with the tenth reporting requirement under "Appendix B". Hope it helps, Steve Rowe MNIS-TextWise Labs
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 16:25:10 UTC