• From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
• To: <liam@w...>,"Rick Yorgason" <rick@f...>
• Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:51:17 +0100

Original Message From: "Liam R E Quin"
> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 00:00 -0400, Rick Yorgason wrote:
>
>> All this proposal does is take markup that's currently invalid and
>> define a valid behaviour for it.
>
> So people would start having an expectation that parsers would accept
> markup that they currently reject.
>
> So, the existing parsers would need to be replaced.

As I understand it, <foo:bar/> is an XML well-formed document, but is not an 
XML Namespace well-formed document.  Just because it isn't namespace 
well-formed shouldn't mean it shouldn't be successfully parsed as an XML 
well-formed document.  There was some discussion on this on the libxml2 
mailing list a while back (you might have to look at earlier mails in the 
thread to get the context):

    http://mail.gnome.org/archives/xml/2011-March/msg00022.html

Therefore I think it's at least suspect to treat <foo:bar/> as <bar 
xmlns='foo'/>.  Whether civilisation as we know it would fall apart if you 
do I don't know!

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.

HTH,

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
for more info
Twitter: http://twitter.com/petecordell

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>

• 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...>