- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:48:13 -0600
- To: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Actually... XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N. And M12N references 4th Edition explicitly. All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks. We don't trust 5th Edition. So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case. Philip Taylor wrote: > 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. > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 20:48:58 UTC