W3C

XML 1.0 Fifth Edition Specification Errata

Abstract

This document records all known errors in the Fifth Edition of the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 Specification ; for updates see the latest version.

The errata are numbered, classified as Substantive or Editorial, and listed in reverse chronological order of their date of publication in each category. Changes to the text of the spec are indicated thus: deleted text, new text, modified text . Substantive corrections are proposed by the XML Core Working Group, which has consensus that they are appropriate; they are not to be considered normative until approved by a Call for Review of Proposed Corrections or a Call for Review of an Edited Recommendation.

Please email error reports to xml-editor@w3.org.

Substantive errata


Editorial errata

Errata as of 2009-09-16

E01

Section 2.2 Characters

Add a Note at the very end of the section as follows:

Note:

[Unicode] (conformance clause C06) says that canonically equivalent sequences of characters ought to be treated as identical. However, XML parsed entities (including document entities) that are canonically equivalent according to Unicode but which use distinct code point (character) sequences are considered distinct by XML processors. Therefore, all XML parsed entities SHOULD be created in a "fully normalized" form per [CharMod-Norm]. Otherwise the user might unknowingly create canonically equivalent but unequal sequences that appear identical to the user but which are treated as distinct by XML processors.

A document can still be well-formed, even if it is not in a normalized form. XML processors MAY verify that the document being processed is in a fully-normalized form and report to the application whether it is or not.

Section A.2 Other References

Add a reference to CharMod-Norm:

CharMod-Norm
W3C Working Draft. Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: Normalization. François Yergeau, Martin J. Dürst, Richard Ishida, Addison Phillips, Misha Wolf, Tex Texin. (See http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-norm/.)
Rationale
The ill effects of (the lack of) Unicode normalization are noteworthy, but advice in a note is the best that can be done as part of an erratum, i.e. without changing the spec normatively.

Last updated $Date: 2009/09/16 17:42:39 $ by $Author: fyergeau $

xml-editor
  翻译: