• From: richard@i... (Richard Tobin)
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:20:46 +0100 (BST)

In article <86sliv79am.fsf@d...> you write:
>Is there an accepted understanding of what "reserved" means in this
>context?

It means that some future standard may define a meaning for them, so
you'd better not use them for your own purposes.

>Is it reasonable for a processor to treat PIs with "xml"
>targets as a well-formedness errors?

The XML spec does not explicitly answer this.  Recent versions of the
Namespaces spec do (in the context of qualified names), and it would
be reasonable to adopt this approach:

    users SHOULD NOT use them except as defined by later specifications

    processors MUST NOT treat them as fatal errors.

The idea being, of course, that you should only use them if some use
has been defined, or you're experimenting with some possible use for
them, and that processors should not reject them because they may make
sense to downstream processes.

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: processing instruction with "xml" target
    • From: Ari Krupnik <ari@c...>
  • Re: processing instruction with "xml" target
    • From: richard@i... (Richard Tobin)

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