Re: MicroXML design goals

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

I think if we run into a flat-out semantic contradiction that we should
just address it in the MicroXML spec.  Doesn't such a disclaimer break the
very goal of a self-contained spec?


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji