• To: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: When is the XML PI <?xml?> required ?
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:48:31 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200311182242.WAA07316@s...>
• References: <3fb7c121$0$237$636a55ce@n...><bp8i0s$1lsoqd$1@I...><200311182242.WAA07316@s...>

At 10:42 PM +0000 11/18/03, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>Also note that, at least AFAICT, if the version is not 1.0, the
>>xml declaration is still not necessarily required (unless it is
>>required by that later specification). In particular, the current
>>XML 1.1 Proposed Recommendation still specifies the xml
>>declaration as optional
>
>Woops!  I think that's a mistake, and needs to be fixed.  I'm
>surprised no-one commented on it before.
>
>An XML document without an XML declaration should be interpreted as
>an XML 1.0 document; it should only be treated as XML 1.1 if it has
>an XML declaration with version="1.1".
>

This is what section 4.3.4 says:

If an entity (including the document entity) is not labeled with a 
version number, it is treated as if labeled as version 1.0.
-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: When is the XML PI <?xml?> required ?
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• References:
  • Re: When is the XML PI <?xml?> required ?
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by Date: RE: Re: XML and a text editor, barefoot in the winter,uphill both ways [...]
• Previous by thread: Re: When is the XML PI <?xml?> required ?
• Next by thread: Re: Re: When is the XML PI <?xml?> required ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread