• From: "David Brownell" <david-b@p...>
• To: "John Cowan" <cowan@l...>, "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:22:07 -0700

> > Whether it's important or not, all XML 1.0 conforming parsers today 
> > do check xml:lang values, at least to the extent of making sure 
> > they're two letters and not three. Failing to do so is a 
> > well-formedness error because of Production 35.
> 
> Oddly enough, this is not true.  Production 35 is not reachable from any
> other production,

I think you meant [33] (unless some erratum renumbered
the grammar productions).


>     and there is no "must" language in clause 2.12
> (except "must be declared in valid documents", which is not relevant).
> A document meets the technical definition of well-formedness in 
> clause 2.1 even if its xml:lang attribute values are crud.

Right, but 

http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-19980210-errata#E31

says that validation must (at user option) provide a crud-alert.

- Dave

p.s. no, parsers aren't consistent on this point yet.
    I want to see agreement on WF-ness, too.



***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• References:
  • Re: Official ISO 639 changes
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: what Napster means for XML
• Next by Date: Re: Foreign Names
• Previous by thread: Re: Official ISO 639 changes
• Next by thread: Happy performance news
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread