Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > XML > legal <xml> tag

Reply
Thread Tools

legal <xml> tag

 
 
Nice
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2003
Hi.
I read somewhere that in XML the tag <xml> is not legal.
But in W3C specs I can't find this statement.
Does anyone know about it ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dimitre Novatchev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2003

"Nice" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Hi.
> I read somewhere that in XML the tag <xml> is not legal.
> But in W3C specs I can't find this statement.
> Does anyone know about it ?


It is perfectly legal. What is not legal is the *prefix* "xml", because it
is already associated in advance to the following namespace-uri:
http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace
and this association should not be changed/redefined.

"Namespace Constraint: Leading "XML"
Prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l, in any case
combination, are reserved for use by XML and XML-related specifications. "
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#xmlReserved


Hope this helped.


=====
Cheers,

Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Julian F. Reschke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2003
"Dimitre Novatchev" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bi27vl$4kd87$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
>
> "Nice" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > Hi.
> > I read somewhere that in XML the tag <xml> is not legal.
> > But in W3C specs I can't find this statement.
> > Does anyone know about it ?

>
> It is perfectly legal. What is not legal is the *prefix* "xml", because it
> is already associated in advance to the following namespace-uri:
> http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace
> and this association should not be changed/redefined.
>
> "Namespace Constraint: Leading "XML"
> Prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l, in any case
> combination, are reserved for use by XML and XML-related specifications. "
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#xmlReserved
>
>
> Hope this helped.


XML 1.0:

"[Definition: A Name is a token beginning with a letter or one of a few
punctuation characters, and continuing with letters, digits, hyphens,
underscores, colons, or full stops, together known as name characters.]
Names beginning with the string "xml", or any string which would match
(('X'|'x') ('M'|'m') ('L'|'l')), are reserved for standardization in this or
future versions of this specification."


 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2003
On 21 Aug 2003 03:37:17 -0700, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Nice) wrote:

>I read somewhere that in XML the tag <xml> is not legal.


The element <XML> is a Microsoft extension to HTML and so is not valid
_for_ _the_ _HTML_ _DTD_.

In XML, I can see no reason why <xml> wouldn't be valid in some
self-generated document or schema.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nice
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2003
Thanks to all, I had my doubts resolved.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dimitre Novatchev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2003

"Julian F. Reschke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bi29fp$4i6m5$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> "Dimitre Novatchev" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:bi27vl$4kd87$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Nice" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > > Hi.
> > > I read somewhere that in XML the tag <xml> is not legal.
> > > But in W3C specs I can't find this statement.
> > > Does anyone know about it ?

> >
> > It is perfectly legal. What is not legal is the *prefix* "xml", because

it
> > is already associated in advance to the following namespace-uri:
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace
> > and this association should not be changed/redefined.
> >
> > "Namespace Constraint: Leading "XML"
> > Prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l, in any case
> > combination, are reserved for use by XML and XML-related specifications.

"
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#xmlReserved
> >
> >
> > Hope this helped.

>
> XML 1.0:
>
> "[Definition: A Name is a token beginning with a letter or one of a few
> punctuation characters, and continuing with letters, digits, hyphens,
> underscores, colons, or full stops, together known as name characters.]
> Names beginning with the string "xml", or any string which would match
> (('X'|'x') ('M'|'m') ('L'|'l')), are reserved for standardization in this

or
> future versions of this specification."


Hi Julian,

Thanks for the correction.

However, as the xml spec was written before the xml-namespace spec, I guess
that the latter overrides the former, providing a more convinient way to
achieve exactly the same.

Also, from practical point of view I tried to procesa this xml document
"<xml/>" : there was not a single error message from any of the parsers of
the 10 XSLT processors I'm using (MSXML3/4, .Net xslTransform, XalanJ 2.4.1,
XalanC 1.5, Saxon 6.5.2, Saxon 7, JD, xsltProc, 4xslt).

On the other side, this xml document:

<t xmlnsml="ttt"/>

raises an error.

And the question was "what is illegal".

Therefore, I believe that my reply was really precise and of practical
value.


=====
Cheers,

Dimitre Novatchev.
http://fxsl.sourceforge.net/ -- the home of FXSL


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Tobin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2003
In article <bi2e7c$4eth8$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de>,
Dimitre Novatchev <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>However, as the xml spec was written before the xml-namespace spec, I guess
>that the latter overrides the former, providing a more convinient way to
>achieve exactly the same.


The XML spec reserved names beginning with "xml". The Namespaces spec
used some of those reserved names. The rest are still reserved, but I
think it's unlikely that any will be used because (as you say) new
extensions will probably use the namespaces mechanism.

>Also, from practical point of view I tried to procesa this xml document
>"<xml/>" : there was not a single error message from any of the parsers of
>the 10 XSLT processors I'm using (MSXML3/4, .Net xslTransform, XalanJ 2.4.1,
>XalanC 1.5, Saxon 6.5.2, Saxon 7, JD, xsltProc, 4xslt).


Many extensions can be provided as layers after parsing, so it
wouldn't be much use if parsers rejected documents because of reserved
names. Namespaces are a case in point: you can implement namespaces
on top of a vanilla XML 1.0 parser, but you wouldn't be able to do
that if the parser had already rejected your xmlns: attributes.

More recent specs tend to be more explicit about what "reserved" means.
For example, the Namespaces 1.1 CR draft says:

All other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l,
in any case combination, are reserved. This means that:

users should not use them except as defined by later specifications

processors must not treat them as fatal errors.

-- Richard
--
Spam filter: to mail me from a .com/.net site, put my surname in the headers.

FreeBSD rules!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dimitre Novatchev
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2003
Thank you, Richard!

Dimitre.


"Richard Tobin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bi2lp0$11d5$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <bi2e7c$4eth8$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de>,
> Dimitre Novatchev <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >However, as the xml spec was written before the xml-namespace spec, I

guess
> >that the latter overrides the former, providing a more convinient way to
> >achieve exactly the same.

>
> The XML spec reserved names beginning with "xml". The Namespaces spec
> used some of those reserved names. The rest are still reserved, but I
> think it's unlikely that any will be used because (as you say) new
> extensions will probably use the namespaces mechanism.
>
> >Also, from practical point of view I tried to procesa this xml document
> >"<xml/>" : there was not a single error message from any of the parsers

of
> >the 10 XSLT processors I'm using (MSXML3/4, .Net xslTransform, XalanJ

2.4.1,
> >XalanC 1.5, Saxon 6.5.2, Saxon 7, JD, xsltProc, 4xslt).

>
> Many extensions can be provided as layers after parsing, so it
> wouldn't be much use if parsers rejected documents because of reserved
> names. Namespaces are a case in point: you can implement namespaces
> on top of a vanilla XML 1.0 parser, but you wouldn't be able to do
> that if the parser had already rejected your xmlns: attributes.
>
> More recent specs tend to be more explicit about what "reserved" means.
> For example, the Namespaces 1.1 CR draft says:
>
> All other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l,
> in any case combination, are reserved. This means that:
>
> users should not use them except as defined by later specifications
>
> processors must not treat them as fatal errors.
>
> -- Richard
> --
> Spam filter: to mail me from a .com/.net site, put my surname in the

headers.
>
> FreeBSD rules!



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how do u invoke Tag b's Tag Handler from within Tag a's tag Handler? shruds Java 1 01-27-2006 03:00 AM
To vlan tag or not to tag? budyerr Cisco 1 07-08-2004 03:45 AM
using param or out tag inside sql tag (jsp/jstl/tomcat) shahbaz Java 0 10-27-2003 02:46 AM
struts tag inside a tag kishan bisht Java 1 07-08-2003 11:04 PM
How to embed the <jsp:plugin> tag into a tag handler class...HELP !! jstack Java 1 07-04-2003 06:58 PM



Advertisments