[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article

• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:22:09 -0800

James Clark wrote:
> 
> David Brownell wrote:
> >
> > "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> >
> > * Is <![CDATA[ ]> the same as ignorable whitespace? We say no.
> >
> > In this area, as in some others, the XML specification errata need to
> > get updated.  This is test that I called attention to in the review.
> > (It came from some XML-Dev discussions, where Microsoft was silent.)
> >
> > In the absence of W3C errata ruling out this handling, ...
> 
> Microsoft is right on this one.  See
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-19980210-errata#E28

Hmm, errata updated (previous 2/17/1999) ... YESTERDAY!!

Good news that they got updated, though from the evidence
the corrections have been sitting on the shelf for about
seven months now. Prompt publication would have helped
everyone; for example, the first published version of those
tests would likely have addressed then-current errata.


> I have to say I think it's inappropriate for the NIST/OASIS test suite
> to include controversial cases, where there are legitimate differences
> of opinion on the correct interpretation of the spec that are not
> resolved by the errata.

As I recall, when this case was incorporated there was no
known controversy.  There had been a discussion, and it had
seemed to be settled -- which is how that case got in.  Any
controversy came by later.

At any rate, that issue can now be fully laid to rest, since
more of the errata are now published.  And I will hope that
the test suite gets promptly updated.

- Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
  • Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Great controversies of XML
• Next by Date: Re: Draft of Paper: Using UML to Define XML DTDs
• Previous by thread: Re: Draft of Paper: Using UML to Define XML DTDs
• Next by thread: Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread