[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: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:40:00 -0400
• In-reply-to: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C106028E8A@r...>

Joshua Allen writes:
> 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?

I think the answer to this is that using the same namespace URI for
element vocabularies and global attribute vocabularies is a dangerous
practice at best.  XSLT wanders slightly into this.

I'm also suggesting that this is work for applications, not for parsers,
until such time as the W3C decides to clean up (abolish?) Namespaces in
XML. 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask thequestion)
• Next by Date: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread