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

Re: version numbers and infosets

• To: ricko@a... (Rick Jelliffe)
• Subject: Re: version numbers and infosets
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: www-xml-blueberry-comments@w..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <00c101c234b2$1bf6fe30$4bc8a8c0@A...> from "Rick Jelliffe" at Jul 27, 2002 12:38:29 AM

Rick Jelliffe scripsit:

> Why not try that minimal solution first, and see if it works? 
> 
> (And why not do it as a corrigendum rather than 1.1)

I keep telling you why.  Because it changes the definition of well-formedness.
A document like "<foo<NEL>bar=baz> is not WF XML 1.0, but it is WF XML 1.1.

-- 
John Cowan       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        <jcowan@r...>
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • RE: version numbers and infosets
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by Date: Re: URIs harmful
• Previous by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread