• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 17:19:01 +0100

> Under my proposal a Blueberry declaration is legal if and only if one or
> more Blueberry characters is used in an XML name somewhere in the
> document. 

well at least that would give a reason for adding the otherwise
objectionable NEL: all anyone who wanted to show they were using all the
latest toys would have to do is start all their documents

<?xml[NEL]version="backberry"?>

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• References:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: PIs within a DTD
• Next by Date: RE: Father of XML?
• Previous by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread