[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: wd-xml-names: resolve the element name in the scope of its contain

• From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:44:18 -0400

Tim Bray scripsit:

> You go on to raise the issue in greater detail, but it is clearly
> the case that the rules have to be spelt out.  For example, it's
> obvious to me that for a non-validating parser, if he hits <foo:a>
> and hasn't seen an xmlns:foo= in his encestry, the situation is
> broken.  Should the spec mandate that in this case, a conforming
> program has to go and fetch any and all external parts of the
> DTD to make sure there isn't a default declaration?  Good question.
> I think the answer has to be "no", thus putting the onus on the author
> either to (a) use a validating processor

Provided the document can be made valid per other concerns.

> or
> (b) have standalone="true".

Well, that will work, I suppose.

> Just to pick nits, attribute *normalization* refers to sorting
> out white space in attribute *values*, so I don't think that
> interacts with namespaces.

Yes, sorry; I meant attribute *defaulting*.

> Gosh, it's nice to have you here to interpret.  If we were going to
> do that, then you couldn't have namespaces on the root element;

Not using the draft's machinery, anyhow.  A PI could put a namespace
on the root element.

> so
> you'd need two *separate* things, one for content-only and one
> for self+content.  Maybe the convenience of the content-only
> binding would make up for the pain of having to handle two different
> kinds of declarations; so far the WG hasn't bought that.
> 
> ><strong>All these considerations fall to the ground if namespace attributes
> >*cannot* be defaulted from the DTD (unlike other XML attributes).
> >The draft is silent on the point.</strong>
> 
> Obviously they can, because an XML processor is required to provide
> defaults, but not to tell the app that they are defaults.  So there's
> no difference in principle between a provided and a defaulted
> attribute. -Tim

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@c...
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: wd-xml-names: resolve the element name in the scope of its containing element.
    • From: james anderson <James.Anderson@m...>

• References:
  • Re: wd-xml-names: resolve the element name in the scope of its containing element.
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: wd-xml-names: resolve the element name in the scope of its containing element.
• Next by Date: Re: wd-xml-names: precedence rules for attribute specification
• Previous by thread: Re: wd-xml-names: resolve the element name in the scope of its containing element.
• Next by thread: Re: wd-xml-names: resolve the element name in the scope of its containing element.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread