Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
John Cowan wrote: > This is not the case. A document that doesn't use namespaces at all > certainly does have an infoset. The only well-formed XML documents > that don't have infosets are ones that use xmlns or xmlns:* attributes > in ways *contrary* to Namespaces in XML. [[[ XML 1.0 documents that do not conform to [Namespaces], though technically well-formed, are not considered to have meaningful information sets. That is, this specification does not define an information set for documents that have element or attribute names containing colons that are used in other ways than as prescribed by [Namespaces]. ]]] Now, Namespaces doesn't have much to say about non-namespaced documents. But like I said, I was being ungenerous. And since you're one of the Infoset authors, I should defer to your intrepetation. Perhaps a future version of the Infoset could state its position on raw XML documents mroe explicitly, instead of oblquely through the correct processing of Namespaces. > "Xmlms" for "xmlns" is an interesting slip.... Psychobabble! Typo, John not slip :) Bill de hÓra
|
