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

Re: Re: URIs, concrete

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:09:12 -0400
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207311948310.28584-100000@e...>

> If you think unqualified attributes being in "no namespace" is a
> mistake, then it's far better to break such documents than to change
> what they mean. In that way it's a compromise.

DTDs are already broken as far as namespaces are concerned, so I'd only
worry about this if DTDs get revised to handle namespaces.  W3C XML
Schema has its own notions about this, but they seem mostly to give
elements an equal share of the "unqualified child" problem.

In practice, I think the way around this is to encourage people to treat
attributes with no namespace as if they had the same namespace as their
element.  That doesn't have to mean a simple reassignment, though it's
certainly possible:
<http://simonstl.com/ns/namespaces/attributes/>

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: URIs, concrete
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

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