From: Peter Flynn <pe...@silmaril.ie>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:54:50 +0100
Local: Wed, Jun 27 2012 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: It seems that XPath does not distinguish between an inexistent path and a null string?
On 14/06/12 11:04, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> "japisoft" <cont...@japisoft.com> writes:It's been a long time, but I think you'll find the discussion in the
>> When your document is parsed, the final result has no difference. But
>> <!ELEMENT somework EMPTY>
>> <!ELEMENT somework (#PCDATA)>
>> are not equal, so write :
>> is equal to
>> is only true if the content type is (#PCDATA) or
> Do you have a source for this claim?
archives of the XML SIG at the time. I seem to remember we did it to
death and the consensus was that XML should not distinguish between the
> I think it's wrong. (Not the factOfficially there is no difference. In practice, if your parser has
> that #PCDATA and EMPTY are different, the fact that there is a
> difference between the two forms of empty elements.)
access to a DTD or Schema, it would be possible for it to detect if
content was allowed or not.
> The XML recommandation says: "If an element is empty, it must beIt is still regarded as good practice in the publishing field, where the
> represented either by a start-tag immediately followed by an end-tag or
> by an empty-element tag." (Section 3.1)
> The only difference I know of is mentioned in the next paragraph: "For
semantics of potential mixed content can be important. It also serves as
a reminder to those who examine the markup that the element type cannot
have any content, rather than the current element just being empty by
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.