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

Andrew Newton <> Wed, 23 August 2006 14:49 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFu2U-0005qy-Tm; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:49:06 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFu2S-0005qp-Ss; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:49:04 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFu2N-0004AL-KI; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:49:04 -0400
Received: from [] ([::ffff:]) (AUTH: LOGIN anewton) by with esmtp; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:48:58 -0400 id 0158819D.44EC6ADA.00004D43
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:48:52 -0400
From: Andrew Newton <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marcos Sanz/Denic <>
Subject: Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

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