"Cantor, Scott" <[email protected]> writes: > On 10/6/12 12:50 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>Thanks, now I understand better. I would feel more comfortable if there >>were a precise reference to what "well-formed serialization" means, >>especially since there is a MUST here. It ought to be possible to >>determine algorithmically whether something conforms or not. Sometimes >>I get the impression that "well-formed" just refers to syntactical >>correctness, whereas namespace considerations are more semantic. > > Actually namespaces extend the notion of syntax in XML, so they're not > just semantic. When you parse while namespace-aware, there are normative > rules for that grammar that include having namespaces declared properly. I > think you probably want to reference the notion of "namespace > well-formed", so my suggested text could be adjusted to include that > instead of just "well-formed". > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/#Conformance
If the document use the term "namespace well-formed" and/or include the reference that would resolve the issue for me. Thanks for clarifying this. /Simon _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
