Special case, as I said. It's
>all in that errata document.
Where? I can't find anything that covers this case.
Danny,
I think that NE07 in the Errata was *intended* to cover this case. But I don't think it was worded sufficiently precisely or took into consideration all possible cases.
In other words, IMHO it's not all in the errata.
It's a perennial problem of specifications.
Specification writers attempt to find words to convey what they mean. Specification readers attempt to find a meaning to match the words used by the specification writers. When specifications are written to cover all cases and are written well the meaning intended by the specification writer and the meaning imputed to the words by the specification reader coincide. Result peace and productivity. When the specification writers convey their meaning imprecisely or omit consideration of significant scenarios the result is a permathread. Witness XML Namespaces.
Andrew Watt
