Well-Formed XML 1.0/1.1 differences

Discussion in 'XML' started by Max, Nov 14, 2006.

  1. Max

    Max Guest

    Hello!

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

    Thanks,

    Max
    Max, Nov 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Max wrote:

    > 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>

    --

    Martin Honnen
    http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/
    Martin Honnen, Nov 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Max

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Max wrote:

    > 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.
    Andy Dingley, Nov 14, 2006
    #3
  4. In article <4559c4c5$0$30315$-online.net>,
    Martin Honnen <> wrote:

    >> 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. )


    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
    --
    "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
    in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
    Richard Tobin, Nov 14, 2006
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Timo Nentwig

    parsing non-well-formed XML (SAX)

    Timo Nentwig, Jun 4, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    837
    Timo Nentwig
    Jun 4, 2004
  2. Paul Flew

    Well-formed XML question

    Paul Flew, Jun 30, 2003, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    983
    Micah Cowan
    Jul 5, 2003
  3. Rimu Atkinson

    how is this XML not well-formed???

    Rimu Atkinson, Jul 9, 2003, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,070
    Peter Flynn
    Jul 15, 2003
  4. Arpan
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    427
    Arpan
    Aug 24, 2006
  5. Rich Fowler
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,259
    Rich Fowler
    Jan 22, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page