[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office-comment] Proposed resolution to public comment #10
I think it would be useful to specify somewhere (I am not digging out a spec and looking, so forgive me) that the XML for ODF conforms to [xml-names] (assuming that the specification doesn't contradict that) as a normative condition. I don't think that modifying the particular clause will accomplish what Dave is noticing (although one could still make that change), because the statement is about the Table 1 namespace prefixes and not about where ":" can occur. - Dennis -----Original Message----- http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200806/msg00069.html From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 10:03 To: office-comment@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [office-comment] Proposed resolution to public comment #10 "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 06/30/2008 11:13:33 AM: [ ... ] > > "Table 1 lists the namespace prefixes this specification uses when > > referring to elements and attributes in the various ODF namespaces. > > Conforming ODF documents may substitute other namespace prefixes, bound to > > the listed namespace URN's, in accordance with the Namespaces in XML > > specification [xml-names]." > > Perhaps add a requirement for namespace well-formed as per > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/#Conformance > I'm thinking that the phrase "in accordance with the Namespaces in XML specification..." would cover that. Would stating it as "in conformance with..." be clearer? -Rob
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]