[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > 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.
>
> the only exceptions made to the requirement that a prefix must be be bound are those concerning
the prefixes xml and xmlns. the phrase "processors must not
> treat [all other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l] as fatal errors"
permits the appearance of such prefixes as the ncname of a
> prefixedattname and as a prefix in a qname. there is nothing in the passage which parallels the
assertion which is made with respect to the xml prefix, this is,
> that "[i]t may, but need not, be declared," which would mean that the exceptions do not govern the
appearance of such an unbound prefix. which mean the the
> normal constraints would apply to them.
Your argument makes sense. It is still not quite clear to me what to do once a specific "xml..."
prefix becomes bound to a namespace by some w3.org specification.
It wouldn't make much sense to declare it, since the declaration would be
predetermined (and could be hard-coded into the parser).
Karl
|
