• To: Michael Fuller <msf@m...>
• Subject: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:05:40 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <200206111731.NAA15897@m...> <87vg8o224b.fsf@n...> <3D083CDD.AE9C8417@r...> <20020614084341.A21716@i...>

Michael Fuller wrote:

> Note that this implies that DTDs that allow the use of use xml:lang [etc.]
> must explicitly declare:
>     <!NAMESPACE xml "http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace">
> 
> In fact, would it also be the case that *every* DTD that use
> namespaces at all must explicitly declare**:
>     <!NAMESPACE xmlns "http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace">

These could also be bound by definition, which is what the namespaces
spec does. (Actually, unless there's an errata I've missed, only xml is
bound. xmlns is by definition not bound to anything.)

-- Ron

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• References:
  • Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: Michael Fuller <msf@m...>

• Prev by Date: validation and typechecking
• Next by Date: Re: validation and typechecking
• Previous by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread