- From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:06:23 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> writes: > > A document is namespace well-formed if: > > > > 1. it is XML. > > 2. All element and attribute names contain either zero or one colon. > > 3. No entity names, processing instruction targets, or notation names > > contain any colons. > > 4. It conforms to the following namespace constraints: > > a. Reserved Prefixes and Namespace Names (xml: and xmlns:) > > b. Prefix Declared > > c. No Prefix Undeclaring > > d. Attributes Unique > > > > About the only subtlety I see wrt entities is whether one says > > the namespace declaration must be in the entity itself or can > > be "inherited" from the "load environment" (in a fashion somewhat > > similar to what the XPointer xmlns() scheme allows one to do > > for xpointers). > > That's one complication. > > > Are there other complications? > > Only that the Namespaces REC speaks specifically of the namespace > well-formedness of "documents" and an external parsed entity isn't a > document. > > Michael Kay proposed, basically, a definition that said if you added a > wrapper around the content of the external parsed entity, the result > was namespace well-formed. I asked how that was different from saying > that each top-level element was namespace well-formed. May be one difference here will be with Processing Instructions Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 05:06:52 UTC