W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > December 2002

Re: FW: XML Query WG Feedback on Sept WD of Namespaces in XML 1.1

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:42:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200212052054.PAA10462@mail2.reutershealth.com>
To: mrys@microsoft.com (Michael Rys)
Cc: pgrosso@arbortext.com (Paul Grosso), Michael.Kay@softwareag.com (Kay Michael), w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org (XML Core WG), w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org, xml-names-editor@w3.org

Michael Rys scripsit:

> I think that we can avoid revving the Infoset along with XML 1.1 only
> if:

I interpret your use of "XML 1.x" to mean "XML 1.x + Namespaces 1.x".

> 1. XML 1.1 describes a true superset of XML 1.0

The set of possible XML 1.1 documents is not quite a superset of the set
of XML 1.0 documents, but the differences are lexical and don't show through
at the Infoset level.

> 2. XML 1.1's superset is not adding new concepts but only adds to the
> value space of the information items (ie, undefining namespaces,
> allowing more character information items) or is purely syntactical
> (U+0002 has to be entitized).

I believe this is correct.  In fact there are no new character information
items; we have extended the value set of Names and Nmtokens, though.

> In any other case, the Infoset needs to be rev'ed as well. I don't think
> it is acceptable to have Infosets that combine 1.0 and 1.1 information
> items if the requirements above do not hold. 

I believe they do.

John Cowan  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
"The exception proves the rule."  Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves
my theory."  Latin students think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts
the rule to the proof."  But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an
exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 15:42:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:27 UTC