• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Global/Local attributes
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:10:52 -0400
• In-reply-to: <7a.2abb9c6f.2a7b3f8f@a...>

At 09:51 PM 8/1/2002 -0400, Benderjgxd@a... wrote:
>In a message dated 8/1/2002 8:36:12 PM Central Daylight Time, 
>dareo@m... writes:
>
>
>>What is broken is the existence of a default namespace. Further mangling
>>Namespaces in XML to accomodate this mistake is unwise and borders on
>>foolishness.
>
>
>I disagree. What is broken is the possibility of local naming, where any 
>namespaces are used. Or rather, what XML Schema seems to call unqualified 
>names.

That  cuts even closer than Dare's original posting - I'd considered the 
setting of the default namespace to "" when I read his.

Mixing qualified and unqualified seems to be a more fundamental problem 
than whether or not we slap prefixes on things.

Hey, progress!

Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Global/Local attributes
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

• References:
  • Re: Global/Local attributes
    • From: Benderjgxd@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the
• Next by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the
• Previous by thread: Re: Global/Local attributes
• Next by thread: Re: Global/Local attributes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread