Re: Illegal Characters in Namespace URIs
Tim Bray wrote: > Having isolated what you argue is a shortcoming in the spec, it would be > good form to advance a suggestion as to how it should be corrected. > Probably just make it clear that conformance to the RFC is required. -Tim Having strained at similar gnats myself, I can say there's a precedent of clarifications like this, made on a discussion list by the spec's editors, sufficing in lieu of published errata. 2 years ago, I nitpicked on the ietf-languages list that RFC 1766 ("language tags") references only ISO 639:1988 ("country codes"), and therefore only the country codes in the 1988 version of ISO 639 could be considered valid, Harald Alvestrand stated that the intent was to reference ISO 639:1988 and its successors, not just that one version. He considered it a minor / overly pedantic enough nit that it didn't require an update to the existing RFC, but IIRC he said that an effort would be made to avoid repeat the mistake in any successors to the RFC. And then someone pointed out that no one validates xml:lang values beyond being CDATA anyway, so what did I care. :) - Mike ____________________________________________________________________________ mike j. brown | xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/ denver/boulder, colorado, usa | resume: http://skew.org/~mike/resume/
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format