[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: version numbers and infosets

• To: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@d...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: version numbers and infosets
• From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:28:39 -0400
• Cc: <xml-editor@w...>
• References: <200207231226.NAA21321@m...> <p04330100b963039b1e89@[192.168.254.4]> <004501c23252$f81d1dc0$32f5d90c@c1980223a>

> In terms of error messages it would make much more sense to receive "This
> parser does not support version '1.1'" than to receive a strange character
> error somewhere near the end of a 10 meg file. If for some reason, you
> wanted the 1.0 parser to attempt to parse a 1.1 document, there was already
> a system in place to do this-- leave off the <?xml?> decl.

You may not have control over that.

Also what about documents that are intentionally designed to parse
under XML 1.0 *and* 1.1? Why force a choice on the parser?
I am not sure a change of this requirement is desirable even for XML 1.1.
There is always the possibility to raise an error on the application
level, since the parser will report the version.

> Of course then
> you couldn't specify encoding in the document, but externally it would still
> be possible.
> 
> The de facto usage has been to fail on != 1.0.

Not with Expat, which is in fairly wide use.

Karl

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Previous by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread