"Cantor, Scott" <cantor(_dot_)2(_at_)osu(_dot_)edu> writes:
On 10/6/12 12:50 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org> wrote:
Thanks, now I understand better. I would feel more comfortable if there
were a precise reference to what "well-formed serialization" means,
especially since there is a MUST here. It ought to be possible to
determine algorithmically whether something conforms or not. Sometimes
I get the impression that "well-formed" just refers to syntactical
correctness, whereas namespace considerations are more semantic.
Actually namespaces extend the notion of syntax in XML, so they're not
just semantic. When you parse while namespace-aware, there are normative
rules for that grammar that include having namespaces declared properly. I
think you probably want to reference the notion of "namespace
well-formed", so my suggested text could be adjusted to include that
instead of just "well-formed".
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/#Conformance
If the document use the term "namespace well-formed" and/or include the
reference that would resolve the issue for me. Thanks for clarifying
this.
/Simon