- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:14:20 -0500
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org, xml-editor@w3.org
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit: > If the intent was to prevent restricted chars from appearing > literally, I agree that this would have been an editorial change, not > a substantive one and not a process violation. Good. > However, as actually > written I don't think the spec does forbid restricted chars in the > document entity, I'm inclined to agree, but I may be overlooking something. > and I'm not convinced it forbids them in external > parsed entities. (I'm not sure about that. Maybe production 78 can be > construed to indicate that, but it's not obvious to me. I think that > <element>#x07 and lots of other restricted chars here</element> does > satisfy production 78.) The BNF notation a - b used in the XML Rec means "anything which matches a but does not match b". Your sample document clearly does match Char* RestrictedChar Char*, and as such cannot match production 78. > If the intent was to forbid literal restricted chars, then perhaps > all that's needed is a 2nd PR that makes the necessary editorial > fixes to say what was actually intended, and you can avoid going back > to last call. I'll defer this to experts in W3C process. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider. --Bilbo to Smaug
Received on Sunday, 9 November 2003 17:14:20 UTC