- From: MURATA Makoto <mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:18:35 +0900 (JST)
- To: FYergeau@alis.com
- Cc: xml-editor@w3.org
Francois, Thanks for your reply. > > - In the revision to 4.3.3 by E27, we have "any irregular code unit > > sequences". However, if we have code unit sequences rather than > > byte sequences, we have already successfully interpreted the parsed > > entity as UTF-8. I think that it should be replaced with "any > > irregular byte sequences". > > You have been misled by the misleading Unicode terminology. "Code unit" > means the units used to encode "code points" (character numbers). In the > case of UTF-8, the code unit is a byte. Although misleading, it's good to > have "code unit" here because it exactly matches what Unicode says. Unicode still surprises me... > > - Subsection 2.2. When is "the time this document was prepared"? > > Publication of the first or second edition, or publication of the > > last erratum? > > It means exactly what it says. For the 2nd edition, it means when that > edition was prepared. This means that errata cannot reference to newer versions of the relevant specs. Are you sure? > Errr, yes it's a bit vague. But what about > > "When an XML processor encounters an element without a specification for an > attribute for which it has read a default value declaration, it is to behave > as though the attribute were present with the declared default value." > > ? Now in the potential errata list. I prefer "must" or "should" to "to behave" , since "to behave" is unclear. Cheers, Makoto
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2002 22:24:06 UTC