[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "David Brownell" <david-b@pacbell.net>
- To: "John Cowan" <cowan@locke.ccil.org>, "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:22:07 -0700
> > Whether it's important or not, all XML 1.0 conforming parsers today
> > do check xml:lang values, at least to the extent of making sure
> > they're two letters and not three. Failing to do so is a
> > well-formedness error because of Production 35.
>
> Oddly enough, this is not true. Production 35 is not reachable from any
> other production,
I think you meant [33] (unless some erratum renumbered
the grammar productions).
> and there is no "must" language in clause 2.12
> (except "must be declared in valid documents", which is not relevant).
> A document meets the technical definition of well-formedness in
> clause 2.1 even if its xml:lang attribute values are crud.
Right, but
http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-19980210-errata#E31
says that validation must (at user option) provide a crud-alert.
- Dave
p.s. no, parsers aren't consistent on this point yet.
I want to see agreement on WF-ness, too.
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
