• From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:56:05 -0700 (PDT)

Ari Krupnik said:
> "The target names "XML", "xml", and so on are reserved for
> standardization in this or future versions of this specification."
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-pi)
>
> Tim Bray annotated this with "names beginning with the letters x, m, l,
> are "reserved", whatever that means."
>
> Is there an accepted understanding of what "reserved" means in this
> context? Is it reasonable for a processor to treat PIs with "xml"
> targets as a well-formedness errors?
>
> Ari.
>
> --
> Elections only count as free and trials as fair if you can lose money
> betting on the outcome.
>

Basically the PI beggining with xml (or any other CAPS combination) are
_reserved_ for usage by the future XML specs.

Now, you have <?xml ...?> or <?xml-stylesheet ...?> as examples of
reserved PIs.

Note: Carlisle is right in that formally PI are defined without the xml
start. Therefore, the xml declaration or the stylesheet call are
pseudo-PIs.

It is natural that example you provided after

<envelope>
 <?xml foo bar?>
 <doc/>
</envelope>

was not correctly parsed, because it begins like a xml declaration.

However, probably parsers would be able to understand

<?xml-myTargetHere ...?>

even if formally that is not a PI.

Note: i did not check above.

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: processing instruction with 'xml' target
    • From: <juanrgonzaleza@c...>
  • Re: processing instruction with 'xml' target
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • processing instruction with "xml" target
    • From: Ari Krupnik <ari@c...>