[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> >%rxp -N < test.xml
> >Warning: Attribute name :b has empty prefix
> >in unnamed entity at line 1 char 6 of <stdin>
> >Warning: Attribute name :b has unbound prefix
> >in unnamed entity at line 1 char 12 of <stdin>
> ><a :b="c"/>
> >%echo $?
> >0
> >
> >(result code 0 means the document is well-formed)
>
> The latest version of RXP reports:
>
> Error: Attribute name :b has empty prefix
> in unnamed entity at line 1 char 6 of <stdin>
>
> and returns status 1.
>
> This corresponds to the namespaces erratum defining the term
> "namespace well-formedness". The original version of the spec did
> not specify a kind of error that should be reported.
Richard,
1) RXP is a great tool. I like it very much. Please do not take it as a personal
offense, I am discussing XML Namespaces recommendation.
2) If the latest version of RXP says that Attribute name :b has empty prefix, then
in my opinion it is still wrong, since there is no thing like prefix for :b, since :b
is not a QName, and a prefix is a feature of a QName.
3) My version of RXP is 1.3, I downloaded it yesterday by following a link from your RXP
page. I've just went there and logged in via ftp, and found that there are pre-releases
of 1.4; and it is great that RXP now recognizes such documents as non-well-formed, but
the message should still be different, as it is not a QName, not an empty prefix.
My point is still the recommendation is faulty, not that an implementation is. I used the
example just to illustrate it.
David Tolpin
|
