Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 2:29 PM -0500 11/1/03, John Cowan wrote:
>Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
>> I disagree with allowing nonvalidating processors to signal any form
>> of error when encountering xml:space="something else". I think the
>> previous spec was quite clear that this was not allowed, and that
>> should not be changed now.
>Are you saying that it was not allowed to signal an error, or that
>it was not allowed to use bogus values of xml:space?
That it was not allowed to signal an error when not validating. It
certainly was not allowed to just drop the value by ignoring the
attribute. In effect, the parser would be altering the document's
infoset by doing so.
>> One final meta-note: I really wish these errata would be publicly
>> discussed and debated before being snuck out the door in the dead of
>Note that the 3rd Ed. is a Proposed Edited Recommendation. The point of
>this status is to attract public comment before moving the spec to
>Recommendation. Of course the errata are public too, but people often
>don't bother looking at them until a new edition is made.
In the past, when I have raised an issue with an erratum I have been
told that it's too late; the decision has been made. I think errata
need to have some sort of public review process so people can flag
potential problems before they are released. This would also have the
benefit of more widely publicizing beneficial errata.
The current approach is much like going straight to full
recommendation on the first release.
Elliotte Rusty Harold
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)