On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM, James Holderness wrote: > > Is that legal? In the processing model for XML media types, RFC4287 says > "this would normally mean that the atom:content element would contain a > single child element", which kind of implies that it might, under certain > conditions, contain more than one. But I don't see how. > > RFC3023 puts me to sleep, so I may have misunderstood something, but I got > the impression that +xml media types were specifically reserved for actual > XML documents (the whole point is a common processing model is it not?). And > a well-formed XML document, by definition, has exactly one root element. So > what am I missing?
text/xml-external-parsed-entity and application/xml-external-parsed-entity Compare the 'document' production [1] with the 'extParsedEnt' one [2] in REC-xml. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-document [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-extParsedEnt (and note at the same time that text/xml-dtd and application/xml-dtd and text/xml-dtd cannot be used within atom:content as their not well-formed "parsed entities", despite being "XML media types" defined in RFC3023, as called by RFC4287 in the processing model for atom:content) (also note that RFC3023 doesn't prohibit the use of +xml for external parsed entities that are not documents) -- Thomas Broyer
