- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- cc: xml-uri@w3.org, Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Jonathan Borden wrote: > > Please provide an example of a document that, when parsed using an > > XML Base conformant parser, is not well-formed, whereas when parsed > > with an XML Base unaware parser is well-formed *under the same > > assumption of how relative namespace names work*. > > Assuming relative URI refs are compared literally: .... no problem... > > Assuming absolutization of relative URI references when used as namespace > names: [example snipped] You are using the word "well-formed" in the sense of "conforming to the Namespace Rec". That will confuse people greatly. It is a well-formedness restriction that "a:foo" and "a:foo" not appear as attributes of the same element. It is *not* a well-formedness restriction that "a:foo" and "b:foo" not appear as attributes of the same element if prefixes "a" and "b" are bound to the same thing. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org "You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China" --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 13:08:04 UTC