Well-Formed XML 1.0/1.1 differences

[Max]

Hello!

What are the differences between "XML 1.0 Well-Formed" and "XML 1.1
Well-Formed"?

Thanks,

Max

 

[Martin Honnen]

What are the differences between "XML 1.0 Well-Formed" and "XML 1.1
Well-Formed"?

Look into the XML 1.1 specification for details, there are differences
on what Unicode characters are allowed in names I think, then XML 1.1
allows certain control characters which are not allowed at all in XML
1.0 to be included as character references (e.g.
)

<http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#sec-xml11>

 

[Andy Dingley]

What are the differences between "XML 1.0 Well-Formed" and "XML 1.1
Well-Formed"?

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml11-20040204/#sec-xml11

There's also the difference in the XML prolog. The XML declaration
<?xml version="1.1"?> was optional in XML 1.0 but it's mandatory in 1.1
If you omit it, the document might still be correct, but it's a 1.0
document.

 

[Richard Tobin]

What are the differences between "XML 1.0 Well-Formed" and "XML 1.1
Well-Formed"?

[/QUOTE]

Look into the XML 1.1 specification for details, there are differences
on what Unicode characters are allowed in names I think, then XML 1.1
allows certain control characters which are not allowed at all in XML
1.0 to be included as character references (e.g.
)

Also:

- The IBM newline NEL (#x85) is treated as a line-end character;
- The C1 controls (0x7f-0x9f, except NEL) cannot appear literally
but must be represented using character references;
- XML 1.1 document should be fully Unicode normalised.

-- Richard