• To: "'Richard Tobin'" <richard@c...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the
• From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
• Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:24:04 -0600
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <200208011800.TAA23821@m...>

Richard Tobin wrote:
> Simon knows they don't have the same attributes.  He thinks the
> namespaces spec should have been different, so that they did have the
> same attributes.  He's knows the spec isn't going to be changed, so he
> thinks that vocabulary designers and applications should take the
> responsibility of always giving them the same interpretation.

I don't see this as a best-practice. Everyone seems to agree that you
probably want to avoid situations where a local (unqualified) and global
(qualified) attribute might be used on the same element - that's the
best practice imo. Saying you're always going to give them the same
interpretation defeats the purpose of namespaces and just confuses those
that already understand how they work.

-aaron
http://staff.develop.com

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Markup perspective not code (wasRE: Re: URIs, concrete)
• Next by Date: RE: Markup perspective not code (wasRE: Re: URIs, concrete)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread