- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:55:04 +0200
- To: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org>, <xml-editor@w3.org>
The HTML WG has decide to wait for resolution of the issue in XML before deciding on a course of action. Steven Pemberton Chair, HTML WG ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org> To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> Cc: <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>; <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>; <w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org>; <xml-editor@w3.org> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 4:32 AM Subject: XML production [2] vs. SGML declaration: C1 and DEL > Hello James, > > Misha and I just detected a discrepancy between the SGML declaration > in http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-sgml-xml-971215 and production [2] of > XML http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#NT-Char. > > [2] Char ::= #x9 | #xA | #xD | [#x20-#xD7FF] | [#xE000-#xFFFD] > | [#x10000-#x10FFFF] > /* any Unicode character, excluding the surrogate > blocks, FFFE, and FFFF. */ > > > CHARSET > BASESET > "ISO Registration Number 176//CHARSET > ISO/IEC 10646-1:1993 UCS-4 with implementation > level 3//ESC 2/5 2/15 4/6" > DESCSET > 0 9 UNUSED > 9 2 9 > 11 2 UNUSED > 13 1 13 > 14 18 UNUSED > 32 95 32 > 127 1 UNUSED > 128 32 UNUSED > 160 55136 160 > 55296 2048 UNUSED -- surrogates -- > 57344 8190 57344 > 65534 2 UNUSED -- FFFE and FFFF -- > 65536 1048576 65536 > > > If production [2] is followed exactly, the above would change to > > CHARSET > BASESET > "ISO Registration Number 176//CHARSET > ISO/IEC 10646-1:1993 UCS-4 with implementation > level 3//ESC 2/5 2/15 4/6" > DESCSET > 0 9 UNUSED > 9 2 9 > 11 2 UNUSED > 13 1 13 > 14 18 UNUSED > 32 55264 32 > 55296 2048 UNUSED -- surrogates -- > 57344 8190 57344 > 65534 2 UNUSED -- FFFE and FFFF -- > 65536 1048576 65536 > > The difference is that the C1 control region and DEL are allowed. > Why this difference? Do you think it is an error in XML? Because > XML is normative, it probably means that the SGML declaration > should be fixed. > > This mail is copied to the HTML WG because they provide an SGML > declaration for XHTML. In their case, it could be argued that > because HTML 4.0 is more restrictive, they do not have to change, > but such a decision should be made explicitly and should be > documented. > > > Regards, Martin. > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2000 09:56:27 UTC