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