W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: question about reserved names

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:51:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030613.125146.105717597.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: cmsmcq@acm.org
Cc: xml-editor@w3.org

Thanks.  That wording would be less ambiguous.  Even less ambiguous would
be something like

... beginning with any of "xml", "xmL", "xMl", "xML", "Xml", "XmL", "XMl",
or "XML" ...

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Subject: Re: question about reserved names
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:55:35 -0600

> At 2003-06-06 07:40, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > >From http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml, Section 2.3
> >
> >         [Definition: A Name is .... Names beginning with the string "xml",
> >         or any string which would match (('X' | 'x') ('M' | 'm') ('L' |
> >         'l')), are reserved for standardization in this or future versions
> >         of this specification.]
> >
> >I am finding it difficult to parse this definition.
> >
> >It is obvious that xmlxxx is a reserved name, as is XmL.  Is, however,
> >XmLxxx a reserved name?  The definition can be read in two ways, one that
> >indicates that it is and one that indicates that it is not.
> 
> As I recall it, the intent was to make XmLxxx a reserved name.
> Perhaps the sentence would be clearer if "or any string" was
> replaced with the words "or with any string".
> 
> Michael Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 12:53:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:32 GMT