- From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 11:45:56 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 ------- Additional Comments From julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 2005-11-27 11:45 ------- Oh my, shouldn't have put XHTML markup inside CDATA :-). Example fixed: 4.4.1 Example - Property with mixed content Consider a dead property such as: <x:author xmlns:x='http://example.com/ns'> <x:name>Jane Doe</x:name> <!-- Jane's contact info --> <x:uri type='email' added='2005-11-26' >mailto:jane.doe@example.com</x:uri> <x:uri type='web' added='2005-11-27' >http://www.example.com</x:uri> <x:notes xmlns:h='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'> Jane has working way <h:em>too</h:em> long on the long-awaited revision of <![CDATA[<RFC2518>]]>. </x:notes> </x:author> (where an xml:lang attribute with value 'en' appeared on a parent element when setting the property) When retrieving the property, a server may return: <author xmlns="http://example.com/ns" xmlns:x="http://example.com/ns" xml:lang="en"> <x:name>Jane Doe</x:name> <x:uri added="2005-11-26" type="email" >mailto:jane.doe@example.com</x:uri> <x:uri added="2005-11-27" type="web" >http://www.example.com</x:uri> <x:notes xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Jane has working way <h:em>too</h:em> long on the long-awaited revision of <RFC2518>. </x:notes> </author> Note: o The [prefix] for the property name itself was not preserved, being non-significant, o attribute values have been rewritten with double quotes instead of single quotes (quoting style is not significant), and that attribute order has not been preserved, o the xml:lang attribute has been returned on the property name element itself (it was in scope when the property was set, but the exact position in the response is not considered significant as long as it is in scope), o the [prefix] has been preserved on the child element "notes", o whitespace between tags has been preserved everywhere (but the fact that CDATA escaping was used is irrelevant), and o the comment item was stripped (as would have been a processing instruction item). ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Sunday, 27 November 2005 19:45:59 UTC