[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>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"?
In theory, the rules about such prefixes would be written by the
specifications that defined them. Since there isn't any special
dispensation allowing them to be used undeclared, I would expect such
specifications to say that they must be declared.
In fact, I think it's very unlikely that there would ever be any such
new prefixes defined. The xml prefix is special for historical
reasons, and the xmlns prefix is the syntax for bootstrapping the
whole namespace mechanism. There is no need for any more magic
prefixes.
>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?
They're just invalid because they haven't got DTDs. In the test suite
description, "invalid" means "well-formed but invalid".
-- Richard
|
