RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body

Henrik writes:

>> +1 but we may also want to remove "such" to make it parse better:

Sure, as long as there is no ambiguity introduced by the fact that the 
parent of the [children] is itself a child (I.e. of body).  Use your 
judgement, IMO.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
09/12/2002 04:44 PM

 
        To:     "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
        cc:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, 
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body



+1 but we may also want to remove "such" to make it parse better:

   Zero or more information items in its
   [children] property. Child element
   information items MAY be namespace
   qualified.

Ok?

Henrik

>I like the direction of this proposal. In the spirit of a friendly 
>amendment I would remove the 'element' from the first paragraph above 
>such that it reads:
>
>   Zero or more information items in its
>   [children] property. Such child element
>   information items MAY be namespace
>   qualified.
>
>This generalizes the description of the Body EII to explicitly allow 
>other types of EII.