OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [dita] FW: XML Spec: Removal of Reservation of "xml" from Names in Errata to 5th Edition

I come back to the thought, though, of "What if we had had that OMG! moment when the TC first reviewed the design for this domain?" Some of the knowledge we have today would not have been available at the time, and I suspect we would have requested that the prefixes be renamed in consideration of the apparent rules of the day.

Had we done so back then, would we today even be considering the option of going back to the now-safe 'xml' prefixes? I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate here. If we lean toward the path of least resistance today (leave things as is), we'll need to at least create a FAQ reciting all the reasons why this is now safe.
  • "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
  • Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
  • --T.S. Eliot
On 8/20/2014 2:01 PM, Eliot Kimber wrote:
Here is Liam's final response to my questions.


Eliot Kimber, Owner
Contrext, LLC

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
1.1. So does that mean we can simply ignore XML 1.1 on this issue and
XML 1.0 as definitive? I haven't really paid attention to the
of XML 1.1 vs. 1.0. DITA definitely does not *require* the use of XML
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
Yes, I think so.

Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/

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:

  • "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
  • Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
  • --T.S. Eliot

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]