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
> 
> "PLAIN EXTERNAL" match "PLAIN   EXTERNAL"
> 
> ? 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.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
Crisp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp