[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Robin Berjon wrote:
> Bob Foster wrote:
>> Am I missing some errata, or is there some complexity-multiplying
>> going on here? It sure seems like a SAX feature that should be dropped
>> should not be used to justify contradicting the namespaces
>> recommendation.
>
> You are missing an erratum to NS 1.0, and the NS 1.1 spec (as well as
> DOM 2 which IIRC was the first to cite it).
>
> See notably:
>
> http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata
> (NE05)
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-names11-20040204/#ns-decl
> (towards the end of section 3)
Thanks. I guess if I were more of a namespace maven I would have known that.
This is the second time today I've run into a case where "errata" were
used to change a specification materially. (The first involved the use
of the '-' character unescaped in an XML Schema pattern.) Gotta roll
with the tide, I guess.
Bob
|
