[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: XML Spec: Removal of Reservation of "xml" from Names in Errata to 5th Edition
Here is Liam's final response to my questions. Cheers, E. ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com On 8/20/14, 12:49 PM, "Liam R E Quin" <liam@w3.org> wrote: >On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:42:56 -0500 >Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com> wrote: > >> As far as I can tell the DITA standard itself does not specify use of >>XML >> 1.1. So does that mean we can simply ignore XML 1.1 on this issue and >>take >> XML 1.0 as definitive? I haven't really paid attention to the >>implications >> of XML 1.1 vs. 1.0. DITA definitely does not *require* the use of XML >>1.1. > >XML 1.0 5th edition replaces XML 1.1 for most practical purposes. > >Differences are the use of Unicode NEL as whitespace (not recommended for >interchange outside a mainframe environment though) and the C0 control >characters that are permitted if escaped in 1.1 and not allowed at all in >1.0 (but they are meaningless and are included only for compatibility). > >> Xerces definitely does not report the use of names starting with "xml" >> (and never has as far as I know since I've been using these tag names >> since at least 2007). >Most don't, I've envountered a couple of parsers that reject them. > >> So it sounds like the errata to XML 1.0 5th Edition are sufficient to >> argue correctness of the current DITA 1.3 design with names starting >>with >> "xml". > >Yes, I think so. > >-- >Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ >Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]