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

Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: [xm

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:10:33 -0400
• In-reply-to: <1029843017.25933.112.camel@marajen>

Amy Lewis writes:
> Item 5 in the description of the element information item.  "An
> unordered set of attribute information items ....  Namespace
> declarations do not appear in this set."  SAX2 gets this right.  DOM
> does not, since namespace declarations are represented in the DOM tree
> as attributes.
> 
> > and even though a namespace declaration *is* an attribute, treating
it 
> 
> I repeat, read the infoset.  A namespace declaration is *not* an
> attribute, in infoset terms.

As long as we're arguing about the Infoset, I have to say that I find
the decision of XPath to consider namespace declarations something other
than attributes and of the Infoset to put them in a separate [namespace
attributes] box to be a painful sign that abstractions are dangerous to
useful syntax.  I have no idea who decided we all needed to be protected
from namespace declarations this way, but I've yet to see a
justification for it.

Namespaces in XML states:"A namespace is declared using a family of
reserved attributes. Such an attribute's name must either be xmlns or
have xmlns: as a prefix. These attributes, like any other XML
attributes, may be provided directly or by default."

Sounds to me like a set of attributes.

SAX2 does provide an option for reporting namespace declarations as
attributes, even when namespace-aware processing is turned on.

But hey, we all know why the namespaces spec exists: to create pointless
arguments!  (Ditto for the Infoset spec.)


-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
  • RE: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>

• References:
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
• Next by Date: RE: linking, 80/20
• Previous by thread: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
• Next by thread: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread