• To: "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
• From: "Michael Good" <musicxml@g...>
• Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:57:19 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=X8dGlorHCvHimX/SOGvx0k2kzsNCXeuqxMCl44O5Fv1EZ/nHwvz1QRcsvDPSijplt7ArLiWSATSPTvh70+qEnRDEMjzQFVth2M2npUgKSeCjtOKCJX+ZtgNRp3uf4UoWZQWjP2kytXOTzg7GMVtDJ/UwgpYY17sHchZegIvMqmI=
• In-reply-to: <4457ECCE.3000408@m...>
• References: <b5ca83430605021612o37ed13c8h3f882849bca75532@m...> <4457ECCE.3000408@m...>

Hi Elliotte,

> They're wrong. Both variants are well-formed. If they're complaining
> it's a bug. Which parsers (and which versions of those parsers) had this
> problem?

Thanks for the explanation. I was mistaken when I said multiple XML
parsers were reporting this as an error. I thought I saw Xerces doing
this but I was wrong. It was only the Altova products (XMLSPY
Professional 2004 Release 4, DiffDog Professional 2005).

Best regards,

Michael Good
Recordare LLC
www.recordare.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
    • From: "Michael Good" <musicxml@g...>
  • Re: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Still banging on about extensibility and validation
• Next by Date: Re: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
• Previous by thread: Re: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
• Next by thread: Re: Choosing a target name for a processing instruction
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread