Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Carlisle" <davidc@n...> > > > I agree. It is a radical change. However, the reasoning behind it was that > > you currently have no way of using attributes defined in the default > > namespace, which seems counter-intuitive to me. > > "no way" is putting it too strongly. You just have to declare a prefix > and use that. Same is true to refer to such elements in Xpath > it's quite common to declare the same namesapce with "" and with a non > empty prefix. Then what is the point of having the default namespace? > > In the end, however, I agree with Dare that the better thing would be to get > > rid of default namespaces. > > "default namespace" is just a namespace which has a current binding to a > prefix of "" together with a syntactic quirk that if the prefix is "" > then you omit the ":" isn't it? Yes, that's what the default namespace is. Of course, that also just happens to be the same format for local elements and attributes (what I refer to as being in the "document namespace"). As a result, it is difficult to use elements in both the default and document namespace at the same time. The simple solution is to use a prefixed namespace instead (though I know you can "undefine" the default namespace as well). Then I have to ask the same question again: What is the point of having the default namespace? --- Seairth Jacobs seairth@s...
|
