Re: Relative Namespaces
Thanks for the comments... I did some hunting for that quote and I think the issue for me is suddenly more clouded. Tim Bray commented on the issue when Namespaces wrt SAX2 was being discussed  in the January thread "SAX2: Namespace Processing and NSUtils helper class"  http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200001/msg00119.html 'Pardon for flogging this possibly-dead horse, but you have to read the text of the namespace spec carefully to realise that you just can't ever have a namespace URI whose value is "". We should have put in a sentence in section 5.2 saying "Note that as a consequence of this rule, it is not possible to have a namespace whose value is the empty string."' The mail cited is pretty much the final word in that discussion regarding the null namespace issue. The DOM's interpretation is mentioned a couple of mails later, interestingly. This seems totally at odds with the DOM's interpretation though the DOM wording is loose-- opting out because it "does no lexical analysis"-- but it seems like it could check for an empty string as easily as checking for null. I think I am beginning to see some of the big picture here, but can someone explain how the Schema view fits in? Also to clarify-- is Tim saying that the following is pointless because it equates to a prefixed name being treated as a non namespace name or is he saying that the document is in error wrt to namespaces because the prefix can not logically be resolved? <foo:bar xmlns:foo="http://foo.com"> <foo:baz xmlns:foo=""/> </foo:bar> Thanks for all of the patience... Jeff
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format