• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: james.anderson@s...
• Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:03:26 -0400

james anderson wrote:

> During conformance tests I observed that numerous test cases include
> system identifiers which are not valid URI references. Yet the documents
> are categorized as valid. The recommendation sets constraints on syntax
> and interpretation of those references which _are_ URI references, but
> this reader could find no stipulation, that those system literals which
> _are not_ valid URI references are thereby in error. 


They are not in error.  Section 4.2.2 as amended by erratum E4 makes
it clear that the XML processor is obliged to %-escape any characters
in a system identifier that are not URI-legal.

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein

• Follow-Ups:
  • URI references [was: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• References:
  • XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>
  • Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
• Next by Date: RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)
• Previous by thread: Re: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
• Next by thread: URI references [was: XML 1.0 Conformance Test Results
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread