Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I wrote: > > Everyone agrees that a namespace is a collection of related > > names, whether they be for elements or attributes. Joe English wrote: > I most emphatically do *not* agree with this [*]. > > An XML namespace as defined by "Namespaces in XML" is *not* a > collection of related names in any meaningful sense. Well, then, why is the definition of an XML namespace "a collection of names, identified by a URI reference [RFC2396], which are used in XML documents as element types and attribute names"? Is the objection to the word "related"? What if I define that to mean related only in the sense of sharing a URI reference identifier, not in the sense of sharing any kind of semantic meaning or intended use? > I think the whole problem > goes away once we dispose of the notion that "being > in a namespace" has any more semantic import than, > say, "starts with a vowel". If we could say that names currently thought of as being in no namespace can be treated equivalently as being in a namespace identified by, say, the empty URI reference "", then I'd be happy. The problem comes when these no-namespace names are treated as somehow connected with their containers in a less-than-completely-consistent way. -- Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@k..., UTF-7: +Z5de+pBU-
|
