[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Paul W. Abrahams" <abrahams@valinet.com>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:00:45 -0400
Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
> >
> > It would be possible to solve this problem by extending the
> > syntax of EntityDecl
> > to allow the specification of an implicit prefix for an included
> > DTD, but that
> > would require integration of the Namespace spec into the XML
> > spec. Personally I
> > believe that would be a Good Thing, but it doesn't appear to be
> > in the cards.
> >
> Actually XML names already redefine:
>
> doctypedecl
> elementdecl
> cp
> Mixed
> AttlistDecl
> AttDef
>
> so I don't think that it didn't happen for a lack of desire to muck with XML
> 1.0.
The definitions in the Namespace spec don't alter the set of well-formed
documents except for reducing that set by excluding names with multiple
colons. What they do is to add an extra level of meaning. The change I'm
hinting at would allow XML documents that currently are not well-formed.
Paul Abrahams
|
