Hi Dave,
Michael's right, no question; Xerces-J jumps all over this document. So by
all means, please file a bug so we can track this one.
Cheers,
Neil
Neil Graham
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Phone: 905-413-3519, T/L 969-3519
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|---------+---------------------------->
| | David N |
| | Bertoni/Cambridge|
| | /[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| | |
| | 06/05/2003 06:16 |
| | PM |
| | Please respond to|
| | xerces-c-dev |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: well-formed or not?
|
|
|
|
|
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Hi all,
I have question regarding a document which I believe is not well-formed,
but when parsing, Xerces reports no error. Here's what the document looks
like:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<root xmlns:foo="http://foo.com/hr"; xmlns:bar="http://foo.com/hr";>
<a foo:bar="Yes" bar:bar="No"/>
</root>
Notice the attribute qnames are different, but with namespaces processing
enabled, they have the same expanded name. Xerces 2.3.0 does not complain
about this file. This seems wrong, given this section of the namespaces
recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#uniqAttrs
Opinions? Should I file a Bugzilla report? Interestingly enough, the
version of MSXML I have on my machine (3.0) also does not report an error.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
