Re: making mozilla's xml to behave in a non-standard way

Axel Hecht wrote:
> none wrote:
>
> > Extracted from the specs:
> >
> > 2.10 White Space Handling

> > An XML processor MUST always pass all characters in a document that are
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > not markup through to the application
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > looks clear
>
>
> Yes. And if you have whitespace before the <?xml..., then the character 
> data as whole doesn't match the document production, and is thus not a 
> document. So the quote above comes long time after the initial 
> whitespace problem.

I do not want to enter into religious war. Section 2.10 clearly states
"In editing XML documents, it is often convenient to use "white space" ..."

Look, in C++ grammar, or Java grammar for example any program should
begin with comments or declarations.
But the white space handling in both specs lets you put whites.

I do not know which MS/Sun/whatsover developper launched the fashion of 
rejecting white spaces at the beginning of XML documents, but clearly it 
is a way to make some brand reject other implementations.

Then, if you want to stuck to 2.8 ( and play with words ):
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2.8 Prolog and Document Type Declaration

[Definition: XML documents SHOULD begin with an XML declaration which 
specifies the version of XML being used.] For example, the following is 
a complete XML document, well-formed but not valid:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<greeting>Hello, world!</greeting>

and so is this:

<greeting>Hello, world!</greeting>

------------------------------------------------
RFC 2119:
3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
-------------------------------------------------------------


So if you want to promote "mozilla-XML" versus "non-mozilla-XML"
you should not accept whites before the <?xml..

( the capitals are copy-pasted from rfc )
Olivier



> Axel
>
> > Axel Hecht wrote:
> >
> > > none wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marco Milanesi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > hi, this is a strange question I know, but I hope to get some 
> > > > > responses:
> > > > >
> > > > >     I have a web application that I can't modify. it outputs an xml to
> > > > > the browser with newlines and spaces at the beginning of the xml.
> > > > >
> > > > > now the question. How can I modify this behaviour of mozilla? how 
> > > > > can it
> > > > > be more tolerant to this malformed xml?
> > > >
> > > > It is not malformed. It is legal to put whites characters before the 
> > > > <?xml .. tag
> > > > It's mozilla which needs fixing, as many other buggy xml parsers.
> > >
> > > Actually, could you quote the spec? Or tell me how I quote wrong?
> > >
> > >  From XML 1.0 3rd edition:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#sec-well-formed
> > >
> > > [Definition: A textual object is a well-formed XML document if:]
> > > 1. Taken as a whole, it matches the production labeled document.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#NT-document
> > >
> > > [1]       document       ::=       prolog element Misc*
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#NT-prolog
> > >
> > > [22]       prolog       ::=       XMLDecl? Misc* (doctypedecl Misc*)?
> > > [23]       XMLDecl       ::=       '<?xml' VersionInfo EncodingDecl? 
> > > SDDecl? S? '?>'
> > >
> > > As you can see, there is no whitespace in front of the XMLDecl.
> > >
> > > Axel