Terry quoting Dan:
> | Perhaps this is more clear:
> |
> | |On the other hand, references to undeclared entities and undefined
> | |numeric character references (i.e. references to code positions that
> | |are not in the domain of the document character set) should be treated
> | |as data characters.
>
> | I'll take it out if Mr. Morris will stipulate.
>
> No. Mr Morris is not speaking for the WG on this point, and you had
> consensus (if only by silence, but after much discussion) with the
> language you had. I'll say it again, you had no business making this
> change. I see I now have support from Martin, and I renew my
> opposition to this last-minute change.
Actually, I can make the same silence argument re. WG concensus.
During the lengthly 10646 dicussion, I raised the error issue
several times and as I recall was generally not responded to. Dan
eventually challenged me to provide words.
I provided words when I had a stable reference point and Dan has
done an elequoent job defending his change in the context of SGML
conformance. (I prefer the revised wording at the top recently
suggested as well).
When 10646 or whatever is discussed again, this change is a
sufficient solution and I would argue superior to an unknown
character ICON which would require more user effort to resolve
than simply looking up an integer in a book.
What I will stipulate is that I won't raise this issue in response
to the 'public' last call on the ietf list or whatever (doesn't
mean I won't respond if an 'outsider' complains). So if
Dan, Eric, and Tim or whatever group decides that the
rough concensus is to remove my suggested change, so be it.
Dave Morris