andrew welch wrote:
That's an interesting point - can you have a well-formed
XML document that isn't namespace-well-formed?
The following document is well-formed (as per "Extensible
Markup Language (XML)") but not namespace-well-formed (as
per "Namespaces in XML"):
<!-- No namespace declaration. -->
<a:elem>
<!-- More than one colon. -->
<a:b:elem/>
</a:elem>
Is it that "well-formed" existed before namespaces came
along, and now saying "well-formed" means both?
Strictly speaking, I don't think "well-formed" as nothing
to do with namespaces. A lot of XML tools now support
"Namespaces in XML" (so restrict the possible document
instances), and it is convenient to say "well-formed" for
both the well-formedness defined in the XML REC and the
namespace-well-formedness.
But I'm not a namespaces expert. Maybe someone here will
can confirm.
Regards,
--drkm
p5.vert.ukl.yahoo.com uncompressed/chunked Sun Aug 13 20:13:39 GMT 2006
___________________________________________________________________________
Découvrez un nouveau moyen de poser toutes vos questions quelque soit le sujet
!
Yahoo! Questions/Réponses pour partager vos connaissances, vos opinions et vos
expériences.
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--