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

Re: version numbers and infosets

• To: jcowan@r...
• Subject: Re: version numbers and infosets
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:02:48 +0100
• Cc: ricko@a..., www-xml-blueberry-comments@w..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200207261437.KAA25077@m...> (message fromJohn Cowan on Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:24:26 -0400 (EDT))
• References: <200207261437.KAA25077@m...>

>> 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.

why not mandate that such a file has an encoding declaration with a
suitable encoding, then you wouldn't even a corrigendum.

The example of cross mounting  the file via an NFS that isn't doing line
ending mappings seems pretty week. If you are in such a situation the
file won't be line based on one side of the nfs mount or the other,
whatever you do in 1.1.

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• References:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by Date: Partitioning?
• Previous by thread: RE: version numbers and infosets
• Next by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread