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

Re: Global/Local attributes

• To: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>
• Subject: Re: Global/Local attributes
• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 09:12:19 -0600
• Cc: "David Carlisle" <davidc@n...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: Message from "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...> of "Thu, 01 Aug 2002 21:07:39 EDT." <00ae01c239c0$ff83b180$6600a8c0@seairthlaptop>
• Sender: uche.ogbuji@f...

> Since we are all getting confused and since we are proposing a change in the
> way that certain attributes are handled when namespaces are involved, how
> abou this...  Suppose the following XML:
> 
> <elem1 xmlns="http://example.com/ns1" xmlns:x="http://example.com/ns2">
>     <x:elem2 x:attr1="" attr2="" />
>     <elem3 attr3="" />
> </elem1>
> 
> In the above, we know the following to be true according to the current rec:
> 
> elem1 belongs to the default namespace ("http://example.com/ns1").
> elem2 belongs to the "x" namespace (="http://example.com/ns2").
> attr1 belongs to the "x" namespace.
> attr2 belongs to no namespace at all.
> elem3 belongs to the default namespace.
> attr3  belongs to... default namespace or no namespace?  ("Note that default
> namespaces do not apply directly to attributes." [1])
> 
> According to the rec, I would have to say that "attr3" belongs to no
> namespace.
> 
> Now, I hear what Simon has been saying.  And I know (I think) that he is
> mostly talking about the instance where you could have something like:
> 
> <elem1 xmlns="http://example.com/ns1" xmlns:x="http://example.com/ns2">
>     <x:elem2 x:attr="" attr="" />
> </elem1>
> 
> However, I would think that in the case above that "attr2" should belong to
> the default namespace, not the namespace that "elem2" belongs to.  The
> reason for this is that there is no other way to use attributes defined in
> the default namespace.  If you want, you could have a fall-back rule that
> says a non-prefixed attribute would belong to no namespace if a default
> namespace is not defined.  However, I think a rule like that would would
> reduce readability and be more error-prone.

Please, no.  I think that placing unprefixed attributes in the default 
namespace would be *far* worse than what we have now.  Now would it address 
the concerns motivating proposals for change in the namespaces REC.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - 
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra
ry/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF - 
http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A
1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC

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

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