Re: New draft: 13-Mar-2001

[Tony Coates <Tony.Coates@reuters.com>]

On 13/03/2001 19:27:13 Norman Walsh wrote:

>[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/entity/spec-2001-03-13.html

In the spec, the sentence "In addition, unqualified attributes other than the
attributes explicitly described in this Specification, are reserved for future
use." seems to have either one comma to many, or one too few.  I would suggest
either adding one before "other" or removing the one after "Specification".

Also, if our two modes are "prefer system identifier" and "prefer public
identifier", then having these selected by the "override" being "yes" or "no" is
just going to be confusing (i.e. "was that 'yes' for prefer system, or 'no' ...
I can't remember now ...").  It would be much easier to understand the document
as it stands now if there was a "prefer" attribute with values "public" or
"system".  Can we discuss this at today's meeting?

With regard to "delegate entries ordered by the length of the start string,
longest first", how is the length determined?  Characters or bytes?  Is "%20" a
longer string than " " (i.e. a space)?  Is this the issue you were referring to
when you wrote "[What about differently %-escaped escaped characters? Does RFC
2396 cover this?]"?

Where it says "Elements from other namespaces are are allowed, but they are
ignored by this specification.", should it say "Elements and attributes ...".  I
know the ability to use attributes in other namespaces is mentioned earlier in
the document, but for people referring to the spec while working, I think it
would be good to repeat this information.

     Cheers,
          Tony.
========
Anthony B. Coates
Leader of XML Architecture & Design
Chief Technology Office
Reuters Plc, London.
tony.coates@reuters.com
========


-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.