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

RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question

• To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:33:50 -0700
• Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcI5fjSnBCW8NK9YQvekf+ImPDFdWAAAvfKA
• Thread-topic: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)

> > > I'm not suggesting that unprefixed attributes should be treated as
> > > global attributes.  I think you're reading far too much into the
> > > I've actually said.  I'm saying that in the context of a given
> > > element, attributes should be treated as having the namespace
context 
> > > of their containing element rather than treated as having an
ambiguous


> > I'm no namespace expert, but I cannot see how you can do what you
> > recommend without causing some attributes to unintentionally be
promoted
> > globally.

> Sorry.  What does this mean?

If two unprefixed attributes are treated as having the namespace context
of their respective containing elements, as Simon suggests, then those
unprefixed attributes will have the same namespace, and therefore the
same context.  Right?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: RE: Use of "ANY"
• Previous by thread: Re: HTML and XML data parsing
• Next by thread: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread