- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:34:12 -0400
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Cc: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>, micro xml <public-microxml@w3.org>
James Clark scripsit: > I am not sure I see how it follows (assuming we are allowing prefixed > attributes generally). From the MicroXML perspective, what's special > about the "xml:" attribute prefix? Can we not treat it as just > another prefix? Syntactically, and even in the data model, we don't have to treat it specially at all. But the semantics of the xml: attributes is universal, and in order to make the spec self-contained we have to explain what that semantics is. We should also have a disclaimer saying that if this semantics contradicts the XML, xml:id, and xml:base specs, then those specs have priority. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Statistics don't help a great deal in making important decisions. Most people have more than the average number of feet, but I'm not about to start a company selling shoes in threes. --Ross Gardler
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 15:34:34 UTC