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

RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)

• From: "Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB)" <Matthew.C.Johnson@l...>
• To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:36:53 -0500

Thanks, this makes sense.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@s...] 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:41 AM
To: Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB); xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)


 

	Using today's parsers, I think this would be viewed as two root
elements under a single document node which causes the parser to fail.
Not
being clear on the details of a parser, it is not clear to me how it
would
know (using the existing spec) that each <person> should be attached to
separate document nodes.  Perhaps your point is that the spec doesn't
care
and it is an implementation issue?

	 

	 

What I'm saying is that if some parser decided to accept two XML
documents
in a single file, for example

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<a>doc one</a>
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<a>doc one</a>

then there is nothing in the XML Recommendation that says it mustn't do
so.
I'm not actually saying it would be a good idea. 

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
  • Re: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: COUTHURES Alain <alain.couthures@a...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB)" <Matthew.C.Johnson@l...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB)" <Matthew.C.Johnson@l...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>