Re: [xml-dev] Element equivalence under XML Namespaces

[Robin Berjon <robin@joost.com>]

On Jan 17, 2008, at 11:40, bryan rasmussen wrote:
>> No, it's not. Well-formedness is defined in the XML specification,  
>> and this
>> doesn't know anything about namespaces;
>
> Not exactly, it knows some things about Namespaces but not enough to
> specify semantic matching - I think it's sort of weird that. Things
> that it knows that I can remember:
>
> 1. : should be used in definition of namespaces.

IIRC this is because the group wanted to ship XML and not wait to  
have its work on namespaces finished. This makes the articulation of  
the specs a bit clunky, and the bit that helps is the sort of warning  
about : in names.

> 2. XML or xml is reserved. I don't think xmlns is defined as a
> namespace declaration anywhere but it seems sort of implied.

Any casing of "xml" being reserved isn't necessarily namespaces  
related, it also allows the introduction of future features with  
specific semantics (as happened with the belated xml:id).

--
Robin Berjon
........................................................................
"Generally, old media don't die. They just have to grow old
  gracefully. Guess what, we still have stone masons. They haven't
  been the primary purveyors of the written word for a while now of
  course, but they still have a role because you wouldn't want a TV
  screen on your headstone."
                         -- Douglas Adams