Re: Empty element tags

On 8/17/2012 5:47 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Uche Ogbuji scripsit:
>
>>> EXCEPT we want to make xmlns a forbidden attribute name right ?? please ?
>> "xmlns" starts with "xml," so that's been reserved since XML 1.0.
> "Reserved" isn't the same as "forbidden".  I understood the desire to be
> to forbid the name "xmlns" at the syntax level.
> If we are to have no namespaces, that's a reasonable desire.
>
> OTOH, we could allow "xmlns" and disallow colons, which would give us
> namespaces for elements, but no need to verify them at the parser.
>
>> I don't think a subset of XML really can get away with no reserved names,
>> nor should it.
> +1
>
I guess my ignorance is showing - I hope an outsider's perspective is 
useful, and not just gum in the works. I see that any name beginning 
"xml" is reserved by XML.  However, it doesn't seem necessary to do that 
in MicroXML unless there is some idea of maintaining compatibility in 
some sense with future revisions of XML as well.  I wonder which names 
in fact have been defined and might need special treatment?  David 
pointed out the need to forbid (or deal with) "xmlns". There has been 
discussion about xml:* attributes, and about the small set of named 
entities needed to escape markup.  Are there others?

-Mike

Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 22:04:31 UTC