• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
• To: "'C. M. Sperberg-McQueen'" <cmsmcq@b...>, "'Chuck Bearden'" <cbearden@r...>
• Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:12:34 -0500

At what point does it become reasonable to expect the specification to be
changed/improved/evolved/complicated to describe expectations in
non-normative sections?

Isn't that where the appellation of XML as a specification becomes XML as a
standard?  After all, it isn't a private wine.

len


From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@b...] 


Fortunately, the marketplace is by and large less forgiving
on this subject than the specs.  For the reasons mentioned
by Ken Holman, and possibly just because it's easier to
do it that way, all the widely used processors I know
anything about will retain namespace nodes in the cases
you describe.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML processor behavior with unused NS declarations
    • From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@b...>

• References:
  • Re: XML processor behavior with unused NS declarations
    • From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@b...>