Re: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy

/ Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> was heard to say:
| IMO, the introduction of xml:id reflects an increment in the
| minor version of XML, and thus applications should be able

I don't think that's the case. This is a well-formed XML 1.0 document:

<p xml-foobar="foo"/>

It happens to use an identifier that has a name that's reserved for
W3C use, but it isn't invalid or not well-formed or not 1.0. Neither
is this one:

<p xml:foobar="foo" xml:id="x"/>

If you're not the W3C, you're taking a chance using a reserved name.
The W3C can come along later and stomp on your semantics and you don't
get to argue about whether they're allowed to do that or not. That's
what reserved means.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.