- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:18:08 -0800
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
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 Sunday, 31 March 2002 18:18:11 UTC