- From: Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:28:08 -0500
- To: MURATA Makoto <mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp>
- Cc: xml-editor@w3.org
MURATA Makoto wrote: > This means that errata cannot reference to newer versions of the > relevant specs. Are you sure? I'm not quite following you. The 2nd edition says the references were current when that 2nd edition was prepared. I don't see a problem for the errata list to update references when updated references become available. > > 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." > > > I prefer "must" or "should" to "to behave" , since "to behave" is > unclear. What about "When an XML processor... it must report the attribute with the declared default value to the application." ? Note that this allows the parser to *also* report that the attribute was defaulted, which is a good thing since the infoset requires it! I take it that you agree with the wording "for which it has read a default value declaration", instead of your list of cases? Regards, -- François
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 11:29:24 UTC