> Since we say "MUST be prefixed", I interpret this to mean that it's
not
> acceptable to use a non-prefixed (but implicitly qualified) value. So
I
> think Scott's first example wouldn't be correct. Comments from anyone
> on this? Do we need to broaden the language in a future version?
I wrote that text, and the language is actually "MUST be prefixed
appropriately", by which I meant it has to be properly namespace
qualified like any QName, not that it had to be prefixed. Sorry if it
wasn't clear.
In practice, I don't think people rely on default namespaces for QName
values too often anyway, it's just confusing.
-- Scott
