> That is a significant loss of information, since xml:base, xml:lang,
> and xml:id attributes are critical to the content. We should register
> the xml prefix as a reserved namespace (not needing an xmlns declaration)
> and then treat it like any other attribute.
i agree that those attributes need to be handled,
however registering the xml prefix as a reserved
namespace alone would IMO not solve the issue but
introduce further problems.
if e.g. "xml:lang" would be a legal property name
and therefore "xml" a legal prefix in JCR, users
could be e.g. tempted to use names such as "xml:data",
"xml:foo" etc. those in turn would be illegal in
the Document View XML representation
i think that this is a specification issue.
the specification should be clear about how
the reserved attributes xml:base, xml:lang etc
are handled on Document View XML import.
also, the handling of the "xml" namespace
should be clearly defined.
reassigning to peeter