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

Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1

• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 17:14:20 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l..., xml-editor@w...
• In-reply-to: <p06002011bbd462a34f96@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <20031109204707.GA6478@m...> <p06002011bbd462a34f96@[192.168.254.4]>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:

> If the intent was to prevent restricted chars from appearing 
> literally, I agree that this would have been an editorial change, not 
> a substantive one and not a process violation. 

Good.

> However, as actually
> written I don't think the spec does forbid restricted chars in the 
> document entity,

I'm inclined to agree, but I may be overlooking something.

> and I'm not convinced it forbids them in external 
> parsed entities. (I'm not sure about that. Maybe production 78 can be 
> construed to indicate that, but it's not obvious to me. I think that 
> <element>#x07 and lots of other restricted chars here</element> does 
> satisfy production 78.)

The BNF notation a - b used in the XML Rec means "anything which matches
a but does not match b".  Your sample document clearly does match
Char* RestrictedChar Char*, and as such cannot match production 78.

> If the intent was to forbid literal restricted chars, then perhaps 
> all that's needed is a 2nd PR that makes the necessary editorial 
> fixes to say what was actually intended, and you can avoid going back 
> to last call.

I'll defer this to experts in W3C process.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@r...  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them
alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag
went over me.  I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am
Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider.  --Bilbo to Smaug

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Process failure in XML 1.1 PR: the control characters are back
• Next by Date: Re: Reusing, Refactoring, Reinventing??? (was Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• Previous by thread: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Production 78 / Process failure in XML 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread