- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:41:52 -0600
- To: public-microxml@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPJCua25fXLqOf+Ta=Rf+He+PvX6t=zdDG4sQnbe19736+X7zA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:39 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > Uche Ogbuji scripsit: > > > > _unless_ you want all well-formed microxml to be well-formed XML > > > (which does seem to follow from the use cases on the wiki), and in > > > that case xml:space="collapse" or xml:mother have to be errors. > > > > -1. I think you raise the important issue of language in how we > > describe it. It seems we should not try to formally state that all > > MicroXML documents will be "well-formed" XML 1.0 documents. > > Oh no, I think we should absolutely say so. A document like <root > xml:mother="sgml"/> is perfectly well-formed in both XML and > XML+Namespaces. > OK yes, but I had thought Liam was saying that the particular case of xml:space="funky" is defined as a WF error in XML 1.0. I didn't bother to check, but if that's not the case, then yes, we should be OK with the strong statement on WF. -- 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
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 20:42:19 UTC