• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@l...,www-xml-blueberry-comments@w...
• Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 06:33:30 -0700

> However, the fact remains: every document that was a well-formed
> XML 1.0 document was also a well-formed XML 1.0 2nd edition
> document. Every document that was not a well-formed XML 1.0
> document was also not a well-formed XML 1.0 2nd edition document.
> Ditto for validity.

In addition to new validity constraints (John mentioned) ...

... there was discussion recently about whether UTF-8 BOM got
declared to be legal in 2nd edition.  A non-normative section now
says so, as does the UDDI spec in some cases; SOAP-friendliness
sems to demand changing the definition of WF-ness to permit a
UTF-8 BOM in 2nd ed "plus errata" (or removing the UTF-8
BOM from the non-normative section, fixing UDDI, etc).  That'd
be a change from being a WFness error to being WF.

- Dave

• References:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by Date: Conversion tools
• Previous by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread