Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 16:13 -0700, Joe English wrote:
> Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > Bob Foster wrote:
> > > > The XML 1.0 well-formedness definition specifically states that
> > > > attributes are unordered, but says nothing about elements.
> > > > This means that technically speaking, a conforming XML parser
> > > > might decide to report the child elements of memo in Listing 1
> > > > in any order.
> > >
> > > Good grief!
> > It's weird, but it's true. I think Tim Bray has admitted this was an
> > omission, but since no sane XML person would tolerate such a libertine
> > parser, there's not much consequence to the omission. (This is
> > standardization by threat of techie ostracism, perhaps?)
> Not so weird. As far as I can tell, other than well-formedness
> and validity errors the XML Rec places no constraints at all on
> what data a processor must report. That's what the Infoset Rec
> is for.
Sure. I pointed out that Infoset connection in the article. This
distinction has not been common knowledge. Considering that the Infoset
is not normative in a surprising number of XML applications (i.e. you're
not using WXS, XQuery, c14N, XInclude, etc.), this is certainly
something that there should have been at least some more attention to in
the XML 1.0 spec. Evidence for that is that element parse order is a
question that does come up among users in practice, and they tend to
look to the spec for inspiration.
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
Use CSS to display XML, part 2 - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/edu/x-dw-x-xmlcss2-i.html
XML Output with 4Suite & Amara - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/04/20/py-xml.html
Use XSLT to prepare XML for import into OpenOffice Calc - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-oocalc/
Schema standardization for top-down semantic transparency - http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think31.html