basic XML question re: Xerces 2003-02-12 - By Swanson, Brion
Andy,
Thank you. In other words, the wording in the W3C definition:
"...no part of which appears in the content of any other element."
refers to the 'physical' tag, not the tag name? If that's the case, then it
doesn't seem necessary to word it in such an ambiguous manner. As long as it
states that the root element must contain all other elements in the
document, with no implications regarding the naming of the element, it would
be much clearer. In my view, indeed in the view of most I know who work with
XML regard the name of the element as a part of that element.
Perhaps what they were trying to say is something like this is not allowed:
<root1>
<root2>
</root1>
</root2>
And that is stated clearly immediately following the definition. I guess I
just don't quite speak techno-legalese when it comes to some of the W3C
definitions.
Thank you again for your clarification on this matter. It certainly changes
a major perception I had about XML well-formedness.
Brion
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-j-user-unsubscribe@(protected)
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-j-user-help@(protected)
|
|
