- From: Glenn Marcy <gmarcy@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:54:51 -0400
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>, xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, connolly@w3.org
At 13:14 2001 06 14 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote:
>Dear XML core WG,
>
>By chance, I just discovered Proposed Erratum 71:
>
>http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2000/10/proposed-xml10-2e-errata#PE71
>
>It is true that this is a bit vague in not saying who is
>responsible for the escaping, but this has been fixed by
>PE 51/E4 to say that the XML processor is responsible:
>
>http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2000/10/proposed-xml10-2e-errata#PE51
>http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata#E4
Paul Grosso writes:
>Right, but I think this erratum is wrong, so I'm asking to
>reopen this issue. A system id should be a string to the
>XML processor, and that's what production 11 makes clear.
>Escaping may be necessary before doing something URI-ish
>with the string, but that should be done by the process
>doing something URI-ish, not the XML processor. Norm
>explains how an entity resolution process is one example
>of why the XML processor should not to the escaping.
I agree with Paul.
A question that I have is should the XML processor be looking for
escaped characters in SystemLiterals in XML docs, and in the URLs
used to open the document entity, i.e. getSystemId(), and in some
way "unescaping" them to get the "string" used within the XML
processor ("reescaping" on the way back out) ?
Regards,
Glenn
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 10:58:03 UTC