• From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
• To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:13:10 +0100

Well I suppose as follows:

a reserved name is reserved for usage by the W3C.
If it is a reserved name that is in use then it has a W3C determined meaning.
If it is a reserved name that is not in use then to use it is
incorrect - but it does not have a W3C determined meaning.

So if xmlns is used it should either raise an error because it starts
with a sequence of characters that is reserved and which has not been
defined in the particular parser or it should pass because it is a
sequence of characters that has a known usage, that usage being
specified by the W3C.

No?

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

On Jan 17, 2008 3:45 PM, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote:
> > But because starting with xml is reserved that
> > implies that xmlns has a W3C determined meaning.
>
> Something wrong with your logic there. All names starting with xml are
> reserved but nearly all such names have no W3C determined meaning.
>
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Element equivalence under XML Namespaces
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• References:
  • Element equivalence under XML Namespaces
    • From: Matthew Van Gundy <matt-xmldev@s...>
  • RE: Element equivalence under XML Namespaces
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Element equivalence under XML Namespaces
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
  • Re: Element equivalence under XML Namespaces
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin@j...>
  • Re: Element equivalence under XML Namespaces
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
  • RE: Element equivalence under XML Namespaces
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>