- From: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:17:59 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org
- Cc: JBoyer@PureEdge.com
The I18N problem with CDATA sections is that a character that can appear in CDATA sections in one encoding my not be able to in another (because it doesn't exist and would have to be a character reference). The I18N group raised this issue in (member only) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2000OctDec/0298.html As far as authoring tools are concerned, the Infoset is just not sufficient for all the things such a tool may need. We have to draw the line somewhere (a document might well be ill-formed during its creation, for example). The exclusion of CDATA section markers from the Infoset should not be taken in any way as preventing tools that need to process CDATA sections from doing so - they just don't get the necessary terminology from the Infoset. You are right that entities were expanded between the start and end markers. As far as I remember the XInclude issue concerned the handling of ranges that cross entity boundaries - should the boundaries be fixed up? If so, they no longer reflect the actual entity content; if not, they are unbalanced. XInclude could just have removed entity boundaries, but I believe that this would be a common problem and quite likely more specifications would have to take trouble to say that they delete them than would use them. The XML Query group also requested the removal of CDATA and entity boundary markers. See the disposal of comments at http://www.w3.org/2001/03/infoset-disposition Your phrase "XML InfoSet be prevented from providing information" is not really consistent with the purpose of the Infoset. It does not require or prohibit the provision of information, it just provides a common vocabulary for specifications to refer to that information with. It was essential to our decisions on both CDATA sections and entities that we did not expect many future standards to refer to these. If it turns out that we were wrong, they can always be added in a future revision. -- Richard
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 18:18:08 UTC