Daniel Veillard scripsit:
I would be tempted to say that xml:id being an ID, it's an
ID duplicate and hence the document is invalid. No such document
should exist at the moment since xml: is reserved ...
I agree except for the word "invalid"; it should be merely
xml:id-unconforming.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
cowan(_at_)ccil(_dot_)org
Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan