proposed errata for RFC 3470

["Larry Masinter" <LMM@xxxxxxx>]

This list should remain open for review of errata and
possible updates to RFC 3470 ("Guidelines for the use
of XML ...")

We've privately received two comments
which I think are appropriate for errata.
Is there any objection to including these
in the RFC Editors errata list?


(1) In section 4.13, it uses the term "numeric entity reference".
However, XML doesn't have anything called a "numeric
entity reference", it has a "numeric character reference".

This is the use of the incorrect term. (I know I've
made this slip before, so I think it's my fault).

Proposed errata:

  > Section 4.13:
  >   "numeric entity reference"  => "numeric character reference"
  > Rationale: document uses incorrect term for numeric character
  > references; they're not 'entity references'.


(2) Section 4.16, says that all white space is considered significant.
However, this might be confusing, because not _all_ white
space is considered significant, e.g., white space inside
tags and outside attribute values, e.g., 
 e.g. <test   name = "test"  /> is essentially the same as 
<test name="test"/>.

Proposed errata:

> Section 4.16:
> 
>   "In XML instances all white space is considered significant and
>    is by default visible to processing applications."
> 
>    =>
> 
>   "In XML instances, white space is often significant and visible
>    to processing applications."
> 
> 
> Rationale: While white space is often significant in XML instances,
> the rules for when it is and isn't significant are complex. Not
> _all_ white space is significant, though. The point
> of this paragraph is just to draw attention to the context,
> so explaining in more detail is unnecessary.


Please let me know if you have any objection to these
two errata.