Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Rick JELLIFFE <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:02:51 +0800
David Brownell wrote:
> > In recognition of this fact, official erratum E73 (at
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-19980210-errata#E73) removes these productions
> > from XML 1.0 altogether. ...
> > ... There is no validity constraint prescribing it.
> Although it's certainly confusing that there WAS a validity
> constraint for a while, and in fact that was the official
> W3C story given to its members for over a year before it
> was finally published as an erratum earlier this year.
> I hope I'm not the only one who finds the W3C backtracking
> to be a potential concern, with respect to stability of
> the specifications on which we're building.
On this particular issue, it is outside the scope of XML to specify
language identifier syntax, no existing valid document will be
invalid, several (most) existing parser do not seem to implement
the checks correctly anyway, and if they have then new document
that correctly uses rfc1677 (?) will not be rejected (AFAIK).
All that will happen is that if someone makes a badly formed
language code, some implementations will report it as an error
attributed to XML 1.0 rather than to the RFC.
If so, it seems a good call. Would it make Sun's parser
pass the conformance suite 100% now?