Re: Namespaces conformance tests
> > I read this as meaning that such prefixes are not illegal per se. > > But I am confused about how to treat declarations. > > "xml" may, but does not need to be declared. > > "xmlns must not be declared. > > But what about the other prefixes with leading characters "xml"? > > I would tend to think they should be treated like "xml", that is, > > declaration optional, but must be to the correct namespace. > > If no mapping to a namespace defined yet (in specifications), then > > do not reject, but feel free to issue a warning. > > the only exceptions made to the requirement that a prefix must be be bound are those concerning the prefixes xml and xmlns. the phrase "processors must not > treat [all other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l] as fatal errors" permits the appearance of such prefixes as the ncname of a > prefixedattname and as a prefix in a qname. there is nothing in the passage which parallels the assertion which is made with respect to the xml prefix, this is, > that "[i]t may, but need not, be declared," which would mean that the exceptions do not govern the appearance of such an unbound prefix. which mean the the > normal constraints would apply to them. Your argument makes sense. It is still not quite clear to me what to do once a specific "xml..." prefix becomes bound to a namespace by some w3.org specification. It wouldn't make much sense to declare it, since the declaration would be predetermined (and could be hard-coded into the parser). Karl
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format