|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...> To: <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 9:05 PM Subject: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters. > At 05:19 PM 24/08/01 -0700, Evan Lenz wrote: <snip/> > >Yes, and so it should, and so they should. In my world, types and names are > >not necessarily the same thing. > > I agree. Unfortunately, XML 1.0 uses "type" to mean "name", > essentially. I think Evan has hit the bull's-eye here. > > Are we making progress? -Tim I agree too. I'll try to push this even further. I'm inclined to believe that some of this confusion came about because of the interpretation of unqualified attributes in the non-normative appendix of the Namespace rec [1]. "The Per-Element-Type Partitions Each type in the All Element Types Partition has an associated namespace in which appear the names of the unqualified attributes that are provided for that element. This is a traditional namespace because the appearance of duplicate attribute names on an element is forbidden by XML 1.0. The combination of the attribute name with the element's type and namespace name uniquely identifies each unqualified attribute." What was the problem with the simpler interpretation that unqualified attributes were in the same namespace as their containing element? Then there would be no need for Per-Element-Type partitions at all (and hence the confusion of unqualified local elements). Thanks, Peter [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#ns-breakdown
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








