- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:20:54 -0400
- To: "John Cowan" <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Cc: <xml-uri@w3.org>, "Paul Grosso" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
John Cowan wrote: > > 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. > I suppose you are literally correct, and yet another reason why RECs such as XML Namespace, XBase and the XML Infoset which so significantly impact the structural meaning of an XML document ought be wrapped into the core XML definition (i.e. XML 1.1). Jonathan Borden
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 13:28:47 UTC