- From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:49:41 GMT
- To: Steve Rowe <sarowe@textwise.com>
- Cc: www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Thank you for your very useful comments on the Infoset draft. > The nature of stringness, or, The synonymy of nullity and emptiness? As you note, we don't use "not present" any more. Everything that can sensibly not have a value says (or should say) that it is null in that case. I'm not sure how we should define null - "a value distinct from all others" perhaps? We should certainly note that it is different from the empty string, which is just a string with no characters. I don't think we need to define "string" do we? > Pre-validation infoset state We already know that there are a number of issues concerning non-validating parsers, especially ones that don't read the whole DTD. We haven't decided what to do about them yet. > Inconsistency between (2.3 and 2.15) and (2.6, 2.13 and 2.14) We removed the [children] property from attributes, and now use attribute IIs to represent namespace declarations (as opposed to in-scope namespaces). So these inconsistencies are just stale references that should be removed. > Political correctitudinality, gender-wise Easily fixed. > CDATA sections We will take note of your comments about round-tripability. I don't understand your comment about redeclaring predefined entities - at least as of XML 1.0 second edition the allowed declarations are very limited. > Finally, some typos There's been a lot of global-replace-regexp lately... Thanks again, -- Richard
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 09:49:58 UTC