- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:17:29 -0500
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 17:43 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > The XML conformance tests assume that a PI with <?XML ...?> (or Xml, > XmL, etc.) is not well-formed. However, 2.6 only says "reserved for > standardization", the same language used for elements and attributes > beginning with the three letters. So our rec and our tests don't agree. I think the Rec should probably win here. I don't see a need to make existing (admittedly erroneous) documents fail. I don't think this case is any worse than having a space before <?xml..., although I see libxml makes that a fatal error rather than treating it as a "reserved" processing instruction. I could live with an error for <?XML, too, though. Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Friday, 11 February 2011 01:17:33 UTC