Re: xml:* attributes

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Uche Ogbuji scripsit:
>
> > I think the idea is that others (not the μXML specmakers) can decide
> > on whether or not xml:id is needed. I think you've won in your battle
> > to not treat with xml:id nor any otehr xml:* attributes in the μXML
> > spec.
>
> However, we still must decide the status of colons in names: if they are
> banned, xml:id won't be usable at a higher level at all (ditto xml:lang,
> etc.)  So from a standpoint of pure syntax, there are four positions:
>
> 1) ban colons everywhere
>

+0



> 2) allow colons only in the form "xml:*" for attribute names
>

+1



> 3) allow colons only in attribute names, as in my editor's draft
>

-0



> 4) allow colons in both element and attribute names, as in XML 1.0
>

-10^100



> None of these refer to semantics.


Yes! This is a key, key point that some have missed in discussion.



> #3 and #4 seem to have no defenders;
> I am defending #2, and various other people are defending #1.  But I
> don't want to allow "xml:foobar" just for the sake of allowing it;
> I want to allow it *so that* xml:id and even xml:Father can be used by
> people who want to use them.
>


-- 
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