Re: My report on experiments with unused namespaces
> The next thing to sort out is what the W3C's definition of > 'deprecated' is. I would say it means that the above XML is legal for > a legacy piece of XML (appealing to Namespaces 1st Ed), but illegal > for an XML language defined after the publication of Namespaces 2nd Ed > (Aug 2006). > W3C doesn't make laws, it writes specifications. Don't read a W3C spec to discover whether document is legal or illegal. W3C specs typically define attributes or predicates such as "well-formed", "valid", "deprecated", and "namespace-well-formed", with rules for deciding whether a document satisfies this predicate or not. You can regard documents having these predicates as acceptable or unacceptable, if you like, but that's your choice. Documents using names beginning "xml" are not illegal; they are not even ill-formed; they simply contain names that are reserved. It's up to you whether documents containing reserved names are acceptable in your application or not. The status of documents using namespaces that are not valid RFC URIs (or IRIs in 1.1) is slightly more ambivalent. I believe the status of the document is that it is not namespace-well-formed; but a conformant processor is not required to report this fact. Michael Kay Saxonica
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format