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

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>]

* Pete Cordell wrote:
>As far as I'm concerned by using it as a name it's defined as a name, either 
>by you or someone else.  By using a random string xmlfoo as a name, you have 
>defined the name xmlfoo.

Definitions explain things by relating them to other things.

>In the section:
>
>    Names beginning with the string "xml", or with any string which would
>    match (('X'|'x') ('M'|'m') ('L'|'l')), are reserved for standardization 
>in this
>    or future versions of this specification.
>
>I interpret "reserved" to mean "set aside for".  In other words, you, not 
>acting on behalf of W3C, MUST not define names starting with "xml".  If you 
>do, then it's not a valid name and therefore the document is not 
>well-formed.
>
>Therefore:
>
> <xmlfoo>
>   <xmlbar/>
> </xmlfoo>
>
>is not well-formed and so is not XML!!!

"Reserved" here means, if you use "xmlfoo", and a later version defines
"xmlfoo" in a way that conflicts with your use, and your stuff breaks
because of that, then that is entirely your fault. You cannot jump from
"reserved" to "must not" to "not valid" and then to "not well-formed".
The last three terms all have well-defined semantics in the context of
the XML specification, and the definition of "well-formed" does not in-
clude any provisions about the use of reserved names.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/