Response to your comment on the XML Infoset CR draft

This is the XML core working group's response to your comment(s) on
the XML Infoset CR draft.  Please let us know within seven days (by
mail to www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org) whether you accept our
resolution or instead wish to have your objection recorded as a
minority opinion.


Issue anderson-1 
Status: rejected
Origin: james.anderson@setf.de: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-infoset-comments/2001AprJun/0039.html 
Doesn't like the way entities have been restricted

The question of whether to represent parsed entities was the subject
of much discussion at the last-call stage. We decided that they were
not required by most of the Infoset's client specs, with the DOM being
the clear exception.

This decision was indeed counter to design principle 2.2 of the
requirements document in that editors may require this information,
but it had become apparent that this requirement was beyond what the
Infoset could reasonably provide. Editors may require information such
as attribute order, whitespace in tags and variety of quotes used that
we had already considered to be too low-level for the Infoset, so we
did not consider that their need for entity boundaries was compelling.

We do not agree that this decision violates requirements 3.3 and 3.4. 

The case of unparsed entities is different; they are part of the
logical content of the document and the XML specification requires
that they are reported.

The Infoset does allow for processors that do not expand external
parsed entities, by means of the Unexpanded Entity Reference
information item. Though there is no separate representation of the
entity, all the relevant information is provided.


Issue anderson-2 
Status: rejected
Origin: james.anderson@setf.de: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-infoset-comments/2001AprJun/0040.html 
xmlns="" should appear in [in-scope namespaces]

xmlns="" attributes are reflected in the [namespace attributes]
property. They do not appear in the [in-scope namespaces] property
because they do not correspond to a namespace that is in scope, but
rather one which is no longer in scope.

The interpretation of xmlns="" as associating the empty prefix with a
"null namespace" would be contrary to the Namespaces rec, which
explicitly states that "unprefixed elements in the scope of the
declaration are not considered to be in any namespace" (section 5.2).


Issue anderson-3 
Status: rejected
Origin: james.anderson@setf.de: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-infoset-comments/2001AprJun/0041.html 
[notation] property of PI violates principle 2.1

We do not agree that the [notation] property of PIs is contrary to
design principle 2.1. The XML spec states that notations may be used
for formal declaration of PI targets (section 2.6), and the fact that
this is optional does not prevent it being part of the logical
structure of the document.


Issue anderson-4 
Status: accepted in principle
Origin: james.anderson@setf.de: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-infoset-comments/2001AprJun/0042.html 
Reporting and requirements

We agree that an updated version of the requirements document would be
useful, and if time allows we will produce one during the PR period.

Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 10:26:00 UTC