(1) First line: "Identifer" -> "Identifier"
(2) Same line: "DefaultIdentifier" -> "Default Identifier"
(3) Why is the second paragraph now a note? This all looks normative to me.
(4) Third paragraph and syntax: Pairs of old-style Unicode escape sequences that can be interpreted as representing supplementary characters must be. See bug 469 comment 4.
(5) Fifth paragraph, 3.0 should be changed to 5.1. See discussion of §7.6 in
(6) Syntax: IdentifierPart must include $, _, \UnicodeEscapeSequence
(7) Syntax: IdentifierIDContinue -> UnicodeIDContinue
(8) Syntax, second occurrence of: UnicodeIDStart -> UnicodeIDContinue
(In reply to comment #0)
> (3) Why is the second paragraph now a note? This all looks normative to me.
Because the actual normative spec. is provided by the BNF. This is a redundant prose summary of what the BNF says, hence it should be a note
Items 1-3 and6-9 have been corrected in the draft.
4 is still controversial
5 is semi controversial and in the rev 11 draft has been turned into an informative note.
(5) the note was deleted in rev19.
(4) bug 469 explains what is in the spec and will remain unless somebody can find a consensus to do otherwise.
Verified in rev 26 draft, except for (3), where Allen's explanation is sufficient, and (4), which is tracked in bug 469.