Re: [xml-dev] My report on experiments with unused namespaces

[David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>]

On 22/09/2010 17:42, Pete Cordell wrote:


 > By using a random string xmlfoo as a name, you have defined the name 
xmlfoo.

That's a very strange definition of definition.



> If you do, then it's not a valid name and therefore the document is not
> well-formed.

It is well formed. (and parsed as such by any xml parser I've tried).
That's why they are reserved so that w3c can define specifications using 
such names and existing software will parse them.
It is much harder to introduce new syntax that makes previously non 
wellformed xml well formed as that requires changing the installed base.

David