[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from 'name' ?
Tuesday, October 4, 2005, 11:58:18 AM, Lofton wrote: LH> At 09:32 AM 10/4/2005 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote: LH> Benoit and Lofton, LH> As I point out in my Chapter 3 review, T.14.5 prohibits the entire set ofC0 LH> control characters except for NUL. So, the decision has alreadybeen made. LH> Section 3.1.1.3 needs some rewriting to clarify this. LH> T.14.5 says: LH> "Format effectors and ESC: Permitted Yes; Prohibited No; LH> Other C0 control codes (except NUL and ISO/IEC 2022 switching) areprohibited." LH> Since these bad guys are format effectors, they are allowed by thePPF. LH> Here is another thought that has occurred to me during this LH> dialog. The 1.0 repertoire would allow, in the value of a 'name' LH> ApsAttr, forexample, the character "<". E.g., a valid value LH> wouldbe: LH> "my <special> group" LH> You can see where I'm going I guess: XCF. This would LH> beproblematic as an XML attribute value, right? (So can it be LH> handled by CDATA section within the XML attribute? I'm not LH> familiar enough to know the answer to that.) An XML parser would say that the document is not well formed, you'll never be able to get beyond this point. LH> Any case, I wonder if a warning note would be useful in LH> 3.1.1.3, about keeping in mind "all applicable XML rules", if the LH> WebCGM content might ever be the companion of an XCF. Thoughts? I guess a warning wouldn't hurt (probably is a good idea). It should probably link to the XML specification. -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com LH> -Lofton. LH> -----Original Message----- LH> From: Benoit Bezaire[mailto:benoit@itedo.com] LH> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:50 AM LH> To: cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org LH> Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: ban 0x09, 0x0A, 0x0D from 'name'? LH> Did we get more feedback on this? was it discussed at thetelecon? LH> This is essentially removing any whitespaces from 'name'. They would LH> become deprecated?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]