Lists Home |
Date Index |
John Cowan wrote:
> This is not the case. A document that doesn't use namespaces at all
> certainly does have an infoset. The only well-formed XML documents
> that don't have infosets are ones that use xmlns or xmlns:* attributes
> in ways *contrary* to Namespaces in XML.
XML 1.0 documents that do not conform to [Namespaces], though
technically well-formed, are not considered to have meaningful
information sets. That is, this specification does not define an
information set for documents that have element or attribute names
containing colons that are used in other ways than as prescribed by
Now, Namespaces doesn't have much to say about non-namespaced
documents. But like I said, I was being ungenerous. And since
you're one of the Infoset authors, I should defer to your
intrepetation. Perhaps a future version of the Infoset could state
its position on raw XML documents mroe explicitly, instead of
oblquely through the correct processing of Namespaces.
> "Xmlms" for "xmlns" is an interesting slip....
Psychobabble! Typo, John not slip :)
Bill de hÓra