FW: XML Spec: Removal of Reservation of "xml" from Names in Errata to 5th Edition

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>]

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/
>