[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> >Does anyone know of a conformance test suite for
> >the Namespaces in XML 1.0 specification?
>
> I made a very small test suite, just testing well-formedness rather
> than the information passed to the application, while I was adding
> 1.1 support to rxp. It has both 1.0 and 1.1 tests.
>
> http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/ftp-area/rmt-xmlns-tests-20030214.tar.gz
Richard,
the test cases 27-33 for NS 1.0 deal with this constraint
(as specified in the errata):
<quote>
Namespace Constraint: Leading "XML"
Replace the Namespace Constraint "Leading XML" in section 2 with:
Namespace constraint: Reserved Prefixes and Namespace Names
The prefix xml is by definition bound to the namespace name
http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace. It may, but need not, be declared,
and must not be bound to any other namespace name. No other prefix may
be bound to this namespace name.
The prefix xmlns is used only to declare namespace bindings and is
by definition bound to the namespace name http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/.
It must not be declared. No other prefix may be bound to this namespace name.
All other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l,
in any case combination, are reserved. This means that
* users should not use them except as defined by later specifications
* processors must not treat them as fatal errors.
</quote>
I read this as meaning that such prefixes are not illegal per se.
But I am confused about how to treat declarations.
"xml" may, but does not need to be declared.
"xmlns must not be declared.
But what about the other prefixes with leading characters "xml"?
I would tend to think they should be treated like "xml", that is,
declaration optional, but must be to the correct namespace.
If no mapping to a namespace defined yet (in specifications), then
do not reject, but feel free to issue a warning.
Also, I am not sure if your test cases 27 and 28 reflect this erratum.
Both are labelled as invalid, but look OK to me, unless of course,
I don't understand the specs correctly?
Karl
|
