[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bill_de_h=D3ra?= scripsit:
> Now, Namespaces doesn't have much to say about non-namespaced
> documents. But like I said, I was being ungenerous. And since
> you're one of the Infoset authors, I should defer to your
> intrepetation. Perhaps a future version of the Infoset could state
> its position on raw XML documents mroe explicitly, instead of
> oblquely through the correct processing of Namespaces.
I think the Namespaces conformance clause is pretty clear: (1) your element
and attribute names can have at most one colon, (2) all other names must
have none, (3) prefixes beginning "xml" are reserved, (4) all other prefixes
must be properly declared, and (5) an element can't contain attributes a:foo
and b:foo if a and b are bound to the same namespace name. That's it.
There is certainly no requirement to use prefixes or declarations.
> > "Xmlms" for "xmlns" is an interesting slip....
>
> Psychobabble! Typo, John not slip :)
It's still funny, associating namespace declarations with the Borg.
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a contract.
--_Specht v. Netscape_
|
