• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:59:05 -0400 (EDT)

Rick Jelliffe scripsit:
>  From: "John Cowan" <cowan@m...>
> 
> > > 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. Thus adding a single processing instruction whose target
> > > contained a Blueberry character either before or after the root element
> > > would make the document Blueberry legal.
> >
> > Well, I certainly have no problem with this idea.
> 
> I certainly do. It goes against the fundamental principle of labelling.

We are not talking about not labelling.  The issue is: should a document
labelled Blueberry be required to actually exploit at least one Blueberry
feature, or is it all right to take a well-formed XML 1.0 document
and label it Blueberry without further change?

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@c...
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by Date: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• 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