Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Rick Jelliffe wrote: > But in the case of XML, we > can have our cake (the fans of strict, codified naming rules can exactly > specify what is allowed) *AND* eat it (bewildered parser-writers can just > use simple tokenizing). Not if they want to be conforming. All conforming XML processors are required to detect well-formedness errrors. If a XML document uses a character in a name that is not allowed, the document is not well-formed and every conforming XML parser is required to report it and is required not to process the document. I think it would be better if well-formedness allowed simple tokenizing to be used, and the detailed checking of name characters was needed only for validity, but that's not how the spec is currently. James xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
