RE: Issue 189: closed

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen writes

>> I don't think it involves any semantic
>> changes but rather editorial clarification

Well, I think that depends on what you are planning to write.  If you are 
suggesting that the version and other properties other than [children] 
MUST NOT be included, I think that
s probably editorial.  Anything else is substantive, I would think.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
03/31/2002 06:18 PM

 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Yves 
Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Issue 189: closed



Ok, I have added this as an editorial issue so that we don't forget it.
If I understand your concern then I don't think it involves any semantic
changes but rather editorial clarification. If that is not the case then
we can upgrade it to a WG issue.

Henrik

>>> my reading is that we allow one child EII which 
>>> is the envelope but that other properties 
>>> like base URI, encoding and version are properties
>>> and not child EIIs and hence also allowed
>
>On reflection, that's a sensible reading,  but I strongly feel 
>that the 
>current text is at best unclear, and arguably misleading.  If 
>this is what 
>we want, we should be explicit as to which properties are allowed 
>(possibly any), and we should spell out any non-obvious 
>implications (if 
>any) of using particular properties.  Do we allow a [base URI] in the 
>infoset?  I thought that came from the binding.  Can the node 
>specify an 
>encoding when sending?  Again, we don't even know whether the 
>binding is 
>encoding at all.  Unparsed entities?  Arguably we've ruled them out 
>elsewhere, but if version is implicitly allowed, why not UE? 
>Etc.  I had 
>originally assumed ONLY the one child.  If we want other 
>properties, we 
>should be clear on the rules and interpretations, I think.

Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 10:25:53 UTC