This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 13673 - Improve the utility of the static external entity for character entities
Summary: Improve the utility of the static external entity for character entities
Status: RESOLVED NEEDSINFO
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-08-04 16:23 UTC by Henry S. Thompson
Modified: 2011-08-31 14:18 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Henry S. Thompson 2011-08-04 16:23:58 UTC
Further to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jul/0055.html, please consider the following Last Call comments:

1) Please provide a human-readable version of the data: URI which is mandated for 'retrieval' in the parsing-xhtml-documents section, at least in the authoring view, so that authors know what symbolic entity references they may use;

2) Please identify the origin of this set of entity definitions, and the basis on which the list will change, or not, when that origin changes.

3) Please expand the list of Public Identifiers which 'correspond' to that external entity, along the lines suggested in the email identified above, to avoid breaking the web.

4) Please consider opening this up further, for example by at least _allowing_ this external entity to be used for _any_ public identifier in a document being processed as XHTML.

Making the list of public identifiers fixed as it is now inhibits the future of XML languages on the Web in an unnecessary way.
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-08-06 06:18:13 UTC
Please file just one issue per bug.

1) The list is the same as the list given in the earlier section with the huge table. I don't think having that table twice is a good idea. If you have further thoughts on this please file a new bug with a specific request.

2) Not sure what you mean. Please file a separate bug with specific suggested text.

3) Please file a separate bug with specifics, in particular, what breakage is currently being caused (e.g. links to pages that break due to the current definition).

4) Could you elaborate on what problem this would solve? What would what inhibit? I don't really understand what problem you are concerned about here. You can use this bug for this issue.


EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Did Not Understand Request
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: See above for case 4.
Comment 2 David Carlisle 2011-08-06 16:35:38 UTC
Note that issue 3/4 is the same issue as bug 13409 which I opened (after discussion withing the Math WG) It was immediately marked as wontfix, I was about to re-open it, but perhaps better to let that close as duplicate if the issue is going to be tracked here.
Comment 3 David Carlisle 2011-08-31 14:18:36 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Note that issue 3/4 is the same issue as bug 13409 which I opened (after
> discussion within the Math WG) It was immediately marked as wontfix, I was
> about to re-open it, but perhaps better to let that close as duplicate if the
> issue is going to be tracked here.


contrary to what I wrote above, points 3 and 4 in comment 0 are equivalent to  bug  13409, which is re-opened and has ongoing discussion.

Also not noted yet in this bug, points 1 and 2 are essentially duplicated in Jirka's bug 13600 which is still open, but where the editor has agreed to add a clarifying note to the text.