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

RE: Re: URIs, concrete

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:26:15 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-67962A07A4D111D693BB0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

I agree that unqualifed attributes "have no namespace" is a mistake.  
Even though I did a double-take when I read that part of the spec, it 
still tripped me up in my first XML application.

Unfortunately, it's not aesthetics, but the unknowably-sized matter of 
deployed base that concerns me.  I think the best we can hope for is to 
say that the if an element is part of a namespace, then unqualified 
attribute names violate validity constraints.  I *might* go along with 
"the result of their presence is undefined," but I think core XML has 
managed to avoid such "is out of scope" issues so far, and I'd hate to
to be the first.

How's that for a compromise?
	/r$

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: URIs, concrete
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: URIs, concrete
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread