• From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
• To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@c...>
• Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 20:26:35 -0400

On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 09:51 +0100, Pete Cordell wrote:

> As I understand it, <foo:bar/> is an XML well-formed document, but is not an 
> XML Namespace well-formed document.
Right.

[...]

> So rather than doing:
> 
>     <com.foo:bar/>
> 
> I would suggest doing:
> 
>     <:com.foo:bar/>

> This is XML well-formed, but the initial colon means that it is not XML 
> namespace well-formed.  You could claim that it was XML namespace-bis 
> well-formed though.

Note that if you start using names like com.foo, you lose the use case
of copying HTML fragments from (say) RSS/Atom into HTML, where typically
you want the same local-name to be copied, but the namespaces are
actually (strictly speaking) different.

I don't have a way to measure the relative frequencies of the various
use cases, though.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@f...>

• References:
  • XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@f...>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@f...>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>