[Bug 8984] New: Invalid XMLLiteral definition of namesspace-well-formed XML fragments is too weak

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8984

           Summary: Invalid XMLLiteral definition of namesspace-well-formed
                    XML fragments is too weak
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
               URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#parsing-model
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: HTML+RDFa (editor: Manu Sporny)
        AssignedTo: msporny@digitalbazaar.com
        ReportedBy: mjs@apple.com
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org,
                    msporny@digitalbazaar.com


Section 4.2 Invalid XMLLiteral values says:

'When generating literals of type XMLLiteral, the processor must ensure that
the output XMLLiteral is a namespace well-formed XML fragment. A namespace
well-formed XML fragment has the following properties:

* The XML fragment, when placed inside of a single root element, must validate
as well-formed XML. The normative language that describes a well-formed XML
document is specified in Section 2.1 "Well-Formed XML Documents" of the XML
specification.

* A case-insensitive match for the currently active xmlns attribute as well as
all currently active attributes starting with xmlns: must be preserved in the
generated XMLLiteral. This preservation must be accomplished by placing all
active namespaces in each top-level element in the generated XMLLiteral, taking
care to not over-write pre-existing namespace values.'

That set of properties appears to be too weak. It does not seem to guarantee
that the fragment placed in a root element would be namespace well-formed for
instance. It is required to be well-formed, but the second requirement does not
seem like it would render it namespace-well-formed.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 06:58:35 UTC