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

Re: version numbers and infosets

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: version numbers and infosets
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:17:24 +0100 (BST)
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <p04330100b963039b1e89@[192.168.254.4]>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

>You want to add a fourth level, not well-formed but OK.

This happens all the time anyway.  Parsers that don't read all
external entities accept not-well-formed documents when the error
occurs in an entity they don't read.

>I think this is a very bad idea. Leave the existing spec 
>alone: no erratum, no change. XML 1.0 is defined by the XML 1.0 spec 
>as originally published. Make any changes in future versions if you 
>really must, but don't touch XML 1.0.

There are two problems with that:

 - there will be documents that are both well-formed XML 1.0 documents
   and well-formed XML 1.1 documents, and they will have different
   infosets depending on which you consider them as (eg a document with
   a NEL in a tokenized attribute)

 - there will be documents labelled 1.1 which are well-formed XML 1.0
   but not well-formed XML 1.1 (eg a document with unnormalized unicode).

You say if "complexifies" the XML story, but it seems much simpler to
me for a document labelled 1.0 to be only a well-formed 1.0 document
and a document labelled 1.1 to be only a well-formed 1.1 document.

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• References:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs harmful
• Next by Date: Re: XML IDE: What are the top 3 and why?
• Previous by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread