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

Re: The subsetting has begun

• To: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:50:16 +0000
• Cc: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>, Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>,"Bullard, Claude L \\(Len\\)" <clbullar@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <E18nczj-00027S-00@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

John Cowan wrote:

> This is not the case.  A document that doesn't use namespaces at all
> certainly does have an infoset.  The only well-formed XML documents
> that don't have infosets are ones that use xmlns or xmlns:* attributes
> in ways *contrary* to Namespaces in XML.

[[[
XML 1.0 documents that do not conform to [Namespaces], though 
technically well-formed, are not considered to have meaningful 
information sets. That is, this specification does not define an 
information set for documents that have element or attribute names 
containing colons that are used in other ways than as prescribed by 
[Namespaces].
]]]

Now, Namespaces doesn't have much to say about non-namespaced 
documents. But like I said, I was  being ungenerous. And since 
you're one of the Infoset authors, I should defer to your 
intrepetation. Perhaps a future version of the Infoset could state 
its position on raw XML documents mroe explicitly, instead of 
oblquely through the correct processing of Namespaces.

> "Xmlms" for "xmlns" is an interesting slip....

Psychobabble! Typo, John not slip :)

Bill de hÓra

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: special characters
• Next by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Previous by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread