- 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