Re: proposed errata for RFC 3470

[Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx>]

On Thursday, May 1, 2003, 5:27:44 PM, Larry wrote:


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

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


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

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

I probably have too, but it is indeed incorrect. The essential
difference is that entities need to be declared, whereas NCRs need not
and indeed cannot be declared, just used.

LM> Proposed errata:

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

I support this editorial change. Its what was originally meant.

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

LM> 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.

Yes, good clarification.

LM> Please let me know if you have any objection to these
LM> two errata.
 
None.


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@xxxxxx