[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>Has there been a decision that there will not be a different infoset?
>That would be great.
There has not been any decision. I think there will have to be an update
to the spec, for example to mention namespace undeclaring (if Namespaces
1.1 is accepted), but I'm hoping there won't be two different infosets.
>No-one could have used NELs in an NMTOKENs attribute in XML 1.0,
>surely. If they are using NMTOKENs, then they must be validating,
>so the NEL would be an error.
Attribute normalization happens even when you're not validating
(though of course you can't guarantee that the external subset will be
read). And it happens even to invalid attributes. An NMTOKENS
attribute with a NEL in it has a NEL in the [normalized value] in
its infoset.
I agree that in practice (and outside test suites) there are probably
no documents that have NELs in NMTOKEN attributes.
>The best way to meet the goals of getting support for Unicode 3.1
>out faster may be *not* to go 1.1 but just update 1.0 (strictly in
>areas relating to tracking Unicode) with a suitable caution
>that this will take a while to be deployed and that old parsers
>may fail.
As you know, there are some people who would object very strongly to
that.
-- Richard
|
