[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
- From: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Rick Jelliffe <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:59:05 -0400 (EDT)
Rick Jelliffe scripsit:
> From: "John Cowan" <firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore