Lists Home |
Date Index |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Foster" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Karl Waclawek" <email@example.com>
Cc: "Jeff Rafter" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:37 AM
> >>But the following is not:
> >><!DOCTYPE doc [
> >> <!ENTITY e "<foo bar1:att='att' bar2:att='att'>test</foo>">
> >><doc xmlns:bar1="http://www.example.org"
> >> xmlns:bar2="http://www.example.org">
> >> <child>&e;</child>
> > Duplicate attribute - not OK.
> This is well-formed WRT XML 1.0 (two different attributes, bar1:att and
> bar2:att). A parser that is not "namespace-aware" certainly shouldn't
> complain about it.
> If a parser is "namespace-aware", i.e., checks conformance to Namespaces
> In XML, then the document is in error, as it violates the constraint
> that no tag may have two attributes with "qualified names with the same
> local part and with prefixes which have been bound to namespace names
> that are identical." But this is not a well-formed error. The first
> version of the namespaces recommendation does not use the term
> "well-formed" at all, and while the 1.1 version does, it is not used in
> this context.
I guess this is true, formally speaking.
However, the main point of a well-formedness violation is that it
represents a fatal error. This also applies to a violation of namespace
constraints. I don't see a practical difference there, unless your
processing context does not require or use namespaces.