Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
*shrug* The Namespaces recommendation provides an example of an alternate path. It depends, in part, upon interpretation of the Entity Declared WFC and VC paragraphs of section 4.1. See below. Namespaces built on well formed documents, that's a big difference. But depending upon how you read these two paragraphs, the following possibly is well-formed (and possibly valid, if the entity is declared in a different schema language): <?xml version="1.0" standalone="no" ?> <x>&foo;</x> I wish that were true (would make MathML fragments a lot easier) but I have not seen any XML parser that would support that reading and as I say a request that that be the case in XML 1.1 was explictly rejected, so I'd assume that the XML core group would not agree with you that that is a possible reading for 1.0 (or 1.1) More than that, not only did they decline to fix the problem, they asserted that there was no problem to fix (using language I found rather offensive, but thats not the issue here) http://www.w3.org/XML/Core/2002/10/charents-20021023 David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
|
