• From: Eddie Robertsson <eddie@a...>
• To: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 09:11:40 +1000

> >Recently, I've run into a compatibility problem with some XML tools over
> >whether it is valid to have an "xmlns:xml" declaration in a document.
>
> This is already on the "potential erratum" list for the Namespaces
> spec, and will be clarified one way or the other.
>
> I don't know how it will turn out, but I strongly recommmend that you
> avoid declaring the xml prefix, and that tools at least warn about it,
> since not declaring it will certainly continue to be legal!

I guess this has gone beyond the point of no return but I agree with Tony
here. XML Namespaces are very hard too crasp for new (and old) users and it
doesn't help that you can use the xml: prefix without having to use the
standard namespace declaration which is the case for any other prefix you
want to use.

Cheers,
/Eddie

• References:
  • Re: Is "xmlns:xml" legal or not?
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is "xmlns:xml" legal or not?
• Next by Date: RE: Really Understood W3C Schema Complex Types?
• Previous by thread: Re: Is "xmlns:xml" legal or not?
• Next by thread: RE: 2001 DevCon
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread