Subject: RE: [xsl] xmlns created literally From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:21:41 -0000 |
> It's well formed xml, and namespace wellformed. I'm not sure it is. Namespaces 1.1 is very ambiguous (and 1.0 is essentially identical): Section 3: "The attribute's normalized value MUST be either an IRI reference - the namespace name identifying the namespace - or an empty string. " Section 7 Conformance of Documents: "A document is namespace-well-formed if it conforms to this specification." (!) Section 8 Conformance of Processors: "a processor MUST report violations of namespace well-formedness, with the exception that it is not REQUIRED to check that namespace names are legal IRIs. " There's nothing in Section 7 that explicitly links the definition of namespace-well-formedness (or conformance) to the "MUST" in section 3. Some think that "conforms to this specification" includes only compliance with the rules in section 7 that explicitly discuss the requirements for conformance, some people seem to think it includes all "MUST"s anywhere in the spec. I asked for a more explicit statement during the comment period on the spec, and the WG declined to add one, and as far as I can tell, the reason is that they couldn't agree among themselves. What is clear is that parsers aren't required to report it as an error, and in practice most don't. XOM is notorious for rejecting invalid namespace names, and it causes users a lot of grief. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] xmlns created literally, David Carlisle | Thread | RE: [xsl] xmlns created literally, Michael Kay |
RE: [xsl] xmlns created literally, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] xmlns created literally, Owen Rees |
Month |