Re: Namespaces conformance tests
>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"? In theory, the rules about such prefixes would be written by the specifications that defined them. Since there isn't any special dispensation allowing them to be used undeclared, I would expect such specifications to say that they must be declared. In fact, I think it's very unlikely that there would ever be any such new prefixes defined. The xml prefix is special for historical reasons, and the xmlns prefix is the syntax for bootstrapping the whole namespace mechanism. There is no need for any more magic prefixes. >Also, I am not sure if your test cases 27 and 28 reflect this erratum. >Both are labelled as invalid, but look OK to me, unless of course, >I don't understand the specs correctly? They're just invalid because they haven't got DTDs. In the test suite description, "invalid" means "well-formed but invalid". -- Richard
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