• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: QNames in attribute values
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:00:55 -0800
• References: <001501c1a970$556de020$78fe0250@pcukmka>

Michael Kay wrote:
> 
> > I'll take a whack at that troll. The SGML-heads tried to make
> > namespaces
> > global and (IIRC, use a syntax other than attributes). But here's Tim
> > Berners-Lee's opinion:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Extensible.html#Local
> >
> It was a nice aim, but it failed miserably, because you can't cut a fragment
> out of an XML document and paste it elsewhere without knowing all the
> namespace declarations that are in scope for that fragment.

People keep responding to me as if I am implicitly approving of Tim
B-L's opinion. I don't! Namespaces in general, local namespaces in
particular and QNames in attribute values in really, really, particular
have done nothing but give me headaches since day 1. The namespaces
spec. is short, concise and precise but it leaves so much to the
application that it is not applied consistently in practice.

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: QNames in attribute values
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• References:
  • RE: QNames in attribute values
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: QNames in attribute values
• Next by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: RE: QNames in attribute values
• Next by thread: Re: QNames in attribute values
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread