Mark Birbeck wrote: > My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after > "xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well > see if the document was well-formed.) The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is likely to cause problems :-) It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not well-formed) according to the previous Rec at <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>. Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll consider the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based on the latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like intentional references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain about that. So this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation. -- Philip Taylor pjt47@cam.ac.ukReceived on Thursday, 5 November 2009 20:32:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 November 2009 20:32:33 GMT