- From: Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:21:51 +0000
- To: "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
Copying the list, which was inadvertently left out. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rushforth, Peter > Sent: September 20, 2013 07:59 > To: 'David Carlisle' > Subject: RE: Open systems / Freedom ( was RE: The Web as an > Application) > > (other than the fact that you don't have to declare > > xmlns:xml=....) > > > > It is that feature which makes it the only straightforward > namespace to use. > > The "schema" of "application/xml" or "text/xml" [1] is > provided by reference to the xml spec, and essentially > include elements (with their angle brackets), attributes > (with their quotes) and the xml: namespace. The fact that > XML processors do not balk and namespace-ill formed xml: > namespace (don't see documents with no xmlns:xml="..." as > ill-formed) is a key feature which could make XML useful as > part of the web. Nor do they balk at adding > @xml:wibble="...", because the "schema" of that namespace is > "must ignore". > It could have been declared that anything not a member of > this set of names is bad XML, but it was not, because it is > recognised by that spec that changes can happen, and all > older XML processors out there would be reporting the new > content as errors. > > So if change can happen, it can happen via community. And this is it. > > We seem to be off list at the moment, your call if you want > to go back on. > > Peter > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-xml-mediatypes-02
Received on Monday, 23 September 2013 13:22:26 UTC