Two mistakes found in XML 1.1 Proposed Recommendation

["John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Anti-disclaimer: For once, I am actually speaking for the W3C XML Core WG.

Two mistakes have been found in the XML 1.1 PR:
                                                                                
 (1) Between CR and PR a technical change was made to the way in which
 control characters are excluded from XML documents.  This was not
 meant to change the intention of the specification, just to fix a bug
 in the way the productions worked.  One of the changes needed to
 achieve this was inadvertently omitted: Production 1 (document)
 should have been modified in the same way as production 78
 (extParsedEnt), but was not.  It will be changed to restore the
 intended meaning.
                                                                                
 (2) As stated in section 1.3 (Rationale for XML 1.1), XML 1.0 and 1.1
 documents are distinguished by the version number in the XML
 declaration.  It is important that the version of an XML document is
 well-defined, so documents without an XML declaration should continue
 be interpreted as version 1.0.  Unfortunately, production 22 (prolog)
 of XML 1.1 leaves the XML declaration optional (as it was in XML 1.0).
 Production 22 will be changed to make the XML declaration required
 in XML 1.1, so that documents without XML declarations are unambiguously
 XML 1.0 documents.  The examples at the beginning of section 2.8 will
 also be changed to make this clear.

Thanks to Richard Tobin for this wording.

-- 
John Cowan       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)