Re: [xmpp] RFC 3920 violates XML 1.0?

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 10/20/10 4:06 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
> On Oct 20, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> 
>> :)
>> 
>> I propose the following changes:
>> 
>> 1. Change the name of the error condition to "not-well-formed".
>> 
>> 2. Add the following interoperability note to Section 4.8.3.13
>> (the section number changes because the stream error conditions are
>> listed alphabetically)...
>> 
>> Interoperability Note: In RFC 3920, the name of this error 
>> condition was "xml-not-well-formed" instead of "not-well-formed". 
>> The name was changed because the element name <xml-not-well- 
>> formed/> violates the constraint from Section 3 of [XML] that 
>> "names beginning with a match to (('X'|'x')('M'|'m')('L'|'l')) are 
>> reserved for standardization in this or future versions of this 
>> specification".
>> 
>> 3. Add the following line to Appendix D ("Differences from RFC
>> 3920")...
>> 
>> o  Changed the name of the <xml-not-well-formed/> stream error 
>> condition to <not-well-formed/> for compliance with the XML 
>> specification.
>> 
>> /psa
>> 
> 
> Are we talking about making this change in 3920bis?
> 
> Given that this draft is almost through IETF LC, do we really want to
> add scope by finding new things in 3920 to fix?

We don't *want* to, but continuing to allow nonconformance with the XML
spec when we're defining an application of XML seems like a bad idea.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/