Re: Names beginning with "xml"

For elements and attributes, I would say

- documents MUST NOT use an attribute name "xmlns" , assuming we go
for a no prefixes in names options; this would not be strictly
required by the no-prefix decision, but if we go for no prefixes, and
things it's best to exclude XML Namespaces entirely

- documents SHOULD NOT use element/attribute names starting with xml
(modulo whatever we decide on the "xml:" prefix)

- processors MUST accept element/attribute names starting with xml,
other than an "xmlns" attribute

For PIs, reserving names starting with "xml" without describing their
semantics would violate self-containedness.  I suggest we deal with
this as part of the discussion of whether to include PIs.

James

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:14 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> What do we do about the statement in XML 1.0 that names beginning wiht
> "xml" (in any case combination) are reserved for future standardization?
> So far, we only have xml:*, xmlns, and xmlns:* in the XML stack in
> element and attribute names and xml-style and xml-model PI targets.
> Change control for these resides with the W3C XML Core WG.  They have been
> very useful as an extension point: anyone who uses a name beginning with
> "xml" for private purposes deserves to lose and need not be worried about.
>
> Shall we put a similar remark into the MicroXML spec?
>
> --
> Note that nobody these days would clamor for fundamental laws        John Cowan
> of *the theory of kangaroos*, showing why pseudo-kangaroos are   cowan@ccil.org
> physically, logically, metaphysically impossible.    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Kangaroos are wonderful, but not *that* wonderful.     --Dan Dennett on zombies
>

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 04:38:01 UTC