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

Re: xml prolog - what am I missing?

• To: Chris Bentley <chris@w...>
• Subject: Re: xml prolog - what am I missing?
• From: Mike Fitzgerald <mikefz@w...>
• Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:58:30 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <7A4A7BE9-A9AD-11D8-AE89-00039312A3C2@w...>
• References: <7A4A7BE9-A9AD-11D8-AE89-00039312A3C2@w...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502)

Chris Bentley wrote:
> Hi, I'm  confused can some put me right;
> 
> I keep seeing references alluding to the fact that a document type 
> declaration IS NOT part of an XML prolog.
> e.g., http://tantek.com/XHTML/Test/minimal.html amongst others.

This document is calling the XML declaration the XML prolog. This is
misleading. An XML declaration is an optional part of the prolog. A
prolog may contain an XML declaration (must be first line), plus
an optional document type declaration, optional comments, optional
space, and an optional PIs, according to the prolog production
(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-prolog).
 
> My confusion comes from my reading of the XML 1.0 spec
> "prolog  ::=   XMLDecl? Misc* (doctypedecl Misc*)?"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#sec-prolog-dtd
> 
> ..doesn't this mean that a document type declaration IS part of an XML 
> prolog?

Your interpretation is correct.

Mike

• References:
  • xml prolog - what am I missing?
    • From: Chris Bentley <chris@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml prolog - what am I missing?
• Next by Date: RE: Universal Schema to Validate an Arbitrary Well-Formed Document
• Previous by thread: Re: xml prolog - what am I missing?
• Next by thread: RE: Universal Schema to Validate an Arbitrary Well-Form ed Document
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread