[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
> If the intent was to prevent restricted chars from appearing
> literally, I agree that this would have been an editorial change, not
> a substantive one and not a process violation.
Good.
> However, as actually
> written I don't think the spec does forbid restricted chars in the
> document entity,
I'm inclined to agree, but I may be overlooking something.
> and I'm not convinced it forbids them in external
> parsed entities. (I'm not sure about that. Maybe production 78 can be
> construed to indicate that, but it's not obvious to me. I think that
> <element>#x07 and lots of other restricted chars here</element> does
> satisfy production 78.)
The BNF notation a - b used in the XML Rec means "anything which matches
a but does not match b". Your sample document clearly does match
Char* RestrictedChar Char*, and as such cannot match production 78.
> If the intent was to forbid literal restricted chars, then perhaps
> all that's needed is a 2nd PR that makes the necessary editorial
> fixes to say what was actually intended, and you can avoid going back
> to last call.
I'll defer this to experts in W3C process.
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them
alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag
went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am
Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider. --Bilbo to Smaug
|
