Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames

Subject: Re: [xsl] are all strings in a sequence valid potential QNames
From: Liam R E Quin <liam@xxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:22:58 -0500
[eek, having mailer problems, I hope this only goes out once]

On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 06:11 +1030, Justin Johansson wrote:
> It is with a certain amount of regret that I now feel unreasonably
> "swayed by the blogs".  Further, I now understand that there was
> little other choice that could have been made in giving the users
> what they wanted.  Hopefully over time, any specs that remain
> out of sync will be brought into line.

Thanks for the response.  At W3C we are slowly bringing other specs
into line where necessary, e.g. namespaces.  Some specs were already
OK because they simply referred to "the latest edition" of XML.

> To conclude my interest in the topic though, can you please say
> exactly what will happen to the XML 1.1 rec.  Will it now be
> depreciated or repealed?

Although it is not widely used, XML 1.1 did allow us to change the
way namespaces worked very slightly -- in an XML 1.1 document you
can "undeclare" a namespace; for that reason, XML 1.1 may linger on
for a while, although no final decision has been made.

It doesn't affect XSL-FO particularly; for XSLT 2, the XPath data model
shared with XQuery (XDM) has an option for XML 1.1 support, but at
least this means we know that 5e isn't going to break the XPath grammar.


Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C,
Pictures from old books:

Current Thread