You may be right. I read it slightly differently, following wording like in 1.4.3
"There is also an alternative syntax that follows the XML syntax." Implying that
the alternative syntax was mandatory in 1.0.
I thought that 3.1 was talking about reading a valid XML document, i.e. handling
entity references, CDATA, requiring a single top level element, etc. Most
JSP documents aren't valid XML, even if you use the XML-like syntax.
An XML-JSP document following 3.1 might look like:
<?xml version='1.0'?>
<jsp:root xmlns:jsp='http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/dtd/jsp_1_0.dtd'>
<jsp:directive.page language='javascript'/>
<![CDATA[
<html><head><title>Counter</title></head>
<body>
<h1>Visitor ]]><jsp:expr>application.attribute.count++</jsp:expr></h1>
<![CDATA[</body></html>]]>
</jsp:root>
Yuck. A 1.0 implementation must support the following equivalent non-XML:
<jsp:declaration.page language='javascript'/>
<html><head><title>Counter</title></head>
<body>
<h1>Visitor <jsp:expr>application.attribute.count++</jsp:expr></h1>
</body></html>
-- Scott
Foster Bob wrote:
> Careful. My reading of the spec is that JSP 1.0 engines are not required to
> accept the <jsp:scriptlet> form of the <% tag. (See the last paragraph of
> section 3.1.) This is described as part of the XML format, for which
> support is not required. By the same logic, even if they do support XML
> format engines need not recognize this tag form in a non-XML format
> document.
>
> Because I could be wrong and probably a lot of people are going to make the
> assumption you did, I'm copying jsp-comments to invite clarification.
>
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JSP-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
