- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:17:17 -0400
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Cc: "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
James Clark scripsit: > Is a MicroXML document that > > - invents its own xml:foo attribute or > > - uses an existing xml:* attribute (say xml:space) in a way that > does not conform to the relevant XML-family spec (eg it says > xml:space="funky") > > ok as far as MicroXML is concerned? As far as I'm concerned, yes to both. However, the spec should have a general warning that this or any other use of "xml" (case-insensitive) at the beginning of a name, without a license from some other spec, is treading on dangerous ground. In particular, I think this also resolves the issue of xml-style and xml-model PIs if we decided to have PIs. We still must ban PIs whose target is "xml" (case-insensitive), as they are not well-formed XML. > If so that compatible with the fact that eg xml:space="funky" is an > error according to XML 1.0? I don't think it's a problem. "Is an error" just means in general that document authors shouldn't do it, and that the results are unpredictable. In the specific case of xml:space, parsers are allowed to report an error (I know of none which do), or recover (as by dropping the attribute or changing its value -- I know of none which do that, either) and carry on. Clearly, then, carrying on without doing anything is implicitly licensed, which is a Good Thing because that's what actually happens. -- After fixing the Y2K bug in an application: John Cowan WELCOME TO <censored> cowan@ccil.org DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 18:17:39 UTC