Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Mike Champion <mc@x...> wrote: | Maybe I'm too busy thrashing in the seaweed to get my head above water, | but what would a namespaces spec without scoping look like? The usual nightmare. | Every element has to explicitly specify its namespace? Of course. | Unprefixed element/attribute names are in "no namespace" whatever that | means? No. *All* names are qualified. The "Motivation and Summary" section of the Rec sez: "These considerations require that document constructs should have universal names [...]". This is a whopping non sequitur, but if you're willing to take it seriously, the obvious implication is that *local* names are the "problem" for which "universal names" are the solution. Anything else would be um, "ugly and complicated". Well, sort of. "Scoping" is just a fancier name for minimization. | Can the current spec be "profiled" to suggest sane best practice here, | or does the spec itself have to be fixed to make un-scoped namespaces | work properly? The Namespace spec is a political document, not a technical one. You must wait for the oracle.
|
