Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <> Wed, 23 August 2006 17:11 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFwGd-0008Ba-VS; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:11:51 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFwGb-00084e-RJ; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:11:49 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFw8Q-0003Fa-3k; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:03:24 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k7NHFkIg011289; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:15:46 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:03:19 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:03:18 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03
Thread-Index: AcbGw18ALr2PujTnT1K6ery1gkfzVgAEqk7y
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <>
To: Andrew Newton <>, Marcos Sanz/Denic <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2006 17:03:19.0321 (UTC) FILETIME=[086BA090:01C6C6D6]
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 20f22c03b5c66958bff5ef54fcda6e48
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1176269275=="


I don't really think that 3470 has been the cause of confusion. If anything, it has helped to reduce confusion.  The real problem has been that people don't know that it exists, or they haven't really read it.  As you noted, the situation with RelaxNG,  for example,  is typically clarified once people read what the document actually says.

(Sorry for top-posting.  I'm doing this from my Treo.)

(One of the authors of 3470)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Andrew Newton []
Sent:	Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Marcos Sanz/Denic
Subject:	Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03

Marcos Sanz/Denic wrote:
> Absolutely, the semantics it's the same. The point is whether we need to 
> introduce a new attribute and its definition, or we can resort to one 
> which is already embedded in the XML specification. I'd prefer the latter.
> For me, 3470 strongly recommends to use xml:lang in any case, not only for 
> DTDs, but we can ask the XML directorate about my interpretation. Hmmm... 
> wait a moment! You are a member of the XML directorate! :-)

Keep in mind, 3470 was written before there was an XML directorate. 
Additionally, 3470 has caused great confusion in the IETF with many people 
coming to the XML directorate asking that Relax NG be given the same status 
as XML Schema and DTDs in the mistaken belief that 3470 only allows XML 
Schema and DTDs in IETF work (3470 doesn't say that nor does the XML 
directorate have any power over this).

> So let's keep spaces in it. But if they are like any other characters and 
> common-transport doesn't want to define a specific type of them, why 
> should
> ? It seems then to me that whitespace collapsing is not a wished feature, 
> and would tend to use normalizedString.

I don't understand your logic, but I'm fine with the conclusion.


Crisp mailing list

Crisp mailing list