• To: robin@k..., xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XMLDecl version
• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:20:39 -0800
• References: <0111131505100B.06801@m...>

> it is unclear to me from the XML spec whether <?xml version='1'?> is 
> well-formed or not. 

Clearly it's well formed.  Look at the grammar productions, notably

    [26] VersionNum    ::=    ([a-zA-Z0-9_.:] | '-')+

which also permits "<?xml version='This-is-a-version-1-Document.'?>"
or even "<?xml version='Microsoft-XML-1.0'?>" (of which many folk
dread the potential appearance:).

Because of the pending Blueberry work, I modified AElfred2 a while
back to just emit a warning if the version string isn't "1.0".  There was
a time when every XML parser seemed to treat that case as a reason
to emit a fatal error (which is fully conformant with the REC).

- Dave

• References:
  • XMLDecl version
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin@k...>

• Prev by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by Date: RE: Caught napping!
• Previous by thread: Re: XMLDecl version
• Next by thread: Help needed with validating XML with the Schema it's suppose to abide by
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread