- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:59:05 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- CC: www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Rick Jelliffe scripsit: > From: "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> > > > > Under my proposal a Blueberry declaration is legal if and only > > > if one or more Blueberry characters is used in an XML name somewhere in > > > the document. Thus adding a single processing instruction whose target > > > contained a Blueberry character either before or after the root element > > > would make the document Blueberry legal. > > > > Well, I certainly have no problem with this idea. > > I certainly do. It goes against the fundamental principle of labelling. We are not talking about not labelling. The issue is: should a document labelled Blueberry be required to actually exploit at least one Blueberry feature, or is it all right to take a well-formed XML 1.0 document and label it Blueberry without further change? -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter
Received on Sunday, 22 July 2001 22:59:12 UTC