• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, xml-dev@i...
• Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:09:24 +0100 (BST)

> However RXP
> reports some warnings that do not appear to be errors, and missed some
> problems involving the lack of encoding declarations in the text
> declarations in an earlier version that xml4j 2.0.4 (but not 1.1.14) picked
> up. These have now been fixed.

Not complaining about the lack of encoding declaration is indeed a bug
in RXP, unless it's a bug in the XML standard :-)  I hadn't noticed that
the encoding declaration is required in a text declaration although it's
optional in an XML declaration.  (Unlike the version information, which is
the other way round.)  Can someone tell me the rationale for this?

-- Richard

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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...)

• Prev by Date: RE: Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....
• Next by Date: RE: Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Torture Test: Parsers Fail
• Next by thread: RE: XML Torture Test: Parsers Fail
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread