It seems I just won the Paper Bag for the sloppiest post of
Nov 2007. Oh well. It is an honour.

Richard Tobin <richard@c...> wrote in
<fgqhg3$2pvt$3@p...>:
> [I'm not honouring the Followup-To: line since we don't
> [have that newsgroup here, and anyway this is relevant in
> comp.text.xml.]

Oops, my fault entirely. I haven't noticed that the original
message was crossposted, and my newsreader is configured to
automatically set follow-ups to just one group if that is
the case.

> In article <fgq324$mrb$1@a...>, Pavel Lepin 
> <p.lepin@c...> wrote:
>>> I have an xml document that contains an element like
>>> this:
> 
>>> <foo title="hello, world&#xB;"/>
> 
>>No you don't:
> 
> Here is an XML document containing that element:
> 
> <?xml version="1.1"?>
> <foo title="hello, world&#xB;"/>
> 
> Whether your tools support XML 1.1 is another matter.

Oops, my fault again - on two counts. I ignored the fact
that this was just a part of the document and decided that
the lack of the declaration implied the OP was dealing with
XML 1.0.

Apart from that, I looked at 2.2 in XML 1.1 SE just out of
sporting interest and staggered away fifteen minutes later,
utterly confused but under the impression that the
characters in RestrictedChar production were still
disallowed: it's mentioned only a couple more times in the
spec, defining those characters as disallowed in documents
and external parsed entities.

Seemingly my caffeine intake was below normal yesterday.

Today, knowing the correct answer, I realised that
RestrictedChars were allowed as character references, due
to changes in Char production, and following from verbiage
in 4.1 (and it's explicitly stated in layman's terms in 1.3
to boot... well, duh).

Those damned lawyers.

I wonder if there are any courses in language lawyering? I
seem to be doing a lot of that recently, and fail miserably
more often than not.

-- 
"I can't help but wonder if you... don't know a hell of a
lot more about practically every subject than Solomon ever
did."