We would not expect ‘" text’ or ‘text "’ to be legit productions for ‘field-argument’. Assuming that square brackets denote optional parts in this context, those would be accepted by the provided syntax though.

Clarify whether or not ‘" text’ or ‘text "’ are legit productions for ‘field-argument’.

page 1489, line 2 Part 4, Section 2.16.1 Syntax

te

Proposed Disposition of DIS 29500 Comment FR-0196 (Modified: 2007-12-07) Agreed; the resolution to this comment is included in that for comments DE-0052 and FR-0074, which resulted in the complete replacement of the syntax in Part 4, §2.16.1, pages 1487­1489 by one defined using the notation from EBNF (as defined in ISO/IEC 14977:1996). Fixing the original syntax would have resulted in the following changes to Part 4, §2.16.1, page 1,489, line 2: field-argument: [ " ] text [ " ] text " text " However, given the rewrite of the whole syntax, this change was incorporated in the new syntax, as follows: field-argument= text | double-quote, text, double-quote ; text= character, {character} ; character= as defined by the production Char in the XML 1.0 specification, §2.2. double-quote= ‘ " ‘ ; (* one double-quote character *) Similar Comments: BR-0013 , DE-0071 ,