Subject: Re: [xsl] Problem with embeded XHTML in an XML file and transformation to XSL:FO|
From: "andrew welch" <andrew.j.welch@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:21:57 +0100
> That's an interesting point - can you have a well-formed XML > document that isn't namespace-well-formed?
Yes, you can. No-one uses them nowadays, but in principle you can have a document that conforms to the base XML recommendation but doesn't conform to the Namespaces Rec. XSLT has always insisted that the source document conforms to both. > > Is it that "well-formed" existed before namespaces came > along, and now saying "well-formed" means both? >
No, to require both you have to specify "namespace-well-formed".
Thanks - out of interest (and off the top of your head) what XML parsers/applications will accept well-formed XML that is not namespace-well-formed ?
I think I started with XML just after the namespaces rec came became a rec, so the idea of using one without the other just seems odd...