[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Those XML mention names
What Dick and Eliot said :)I also became comfortable with the aesthetics of the "xm-" prefix, once I read it a x(ml)m(ention).
Best, Kris Kristen James Eberlein Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting www.eberleinconsulting.com +1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype) On 8/19/2014 5:28 PM, Eliot Kimber wrote:
I have to agree with Dick: the letter of the XML spec is clear and I think we have to adhere to it. At a minimum, not doing so would put the whole DITA 1.3 schedule at serious risk since it would only take one reviewer to make a stink for us to have to change. It's certainly my fault for not having remembered (or noticed subsequently) this constraint in the XML spec, but at least we noticed it now while it's relatively easy to change. Cheers, E. ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com On 8/19/14, 4:21 PM, "Richard Hamilton" <hamilton@xmlpress.net> wrote:Hi Tom, Interesting information from George, and a reasonable interpretation. I would argue against using xml in these names. While the risk may be low, the consequences would be pretty bad if W3C decided to use one of those names. I would also argue that "reserved" is for all practical purposes "invalid" for anyone except W3C. Best regards, Dick ------- XML Press XML for Technical Communicators http://xmlpress.net hamilton@xmlpress.net On Aug 19, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Tom Magliery <tom.magliery@justsystems.com> wrote:I mentioned to George Bina our discovery about the element names in the XML-mention domain. Mostly I was just expressing my surprise that no one of us had noticed before, presumably because no tools flagged those element names as being any kind of problem in a DTD. I confirmed for myself (both in and outside of DITA) that XMetaL certainly doesn't, and George confirmed that oXygen doesn't either. He thought that some earlier versions of Xerces might have given warnings.He raised a good point about why this is correct behaviour for thetools: The spec doesn't say that these names are invalid, just that they're reserved for future W3C use. If W3C were to use such names in a DTD someday, we wouldn't want our tools rejecting their DTDs.He also suggested (and I agree) that our decision to use/not use thesenames is therefore a risk/benefit analysis: What is the risk, should we decide to use the names "xmlelement", "xmlatt", etc., that W3C would come along one day and declare that the names are going to serve some official, other purpose?Maybe we should weigh that against the aesthetics of these namescompared with the "xm-" versions, before we make our final decision.mag--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]