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

Re: Default namespaces are *evil*! (RE: Global/Local

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Default namespaces are *evil*! (RE: Global/Local attributes)
• From: Kian-Tat Lim <ktl@k...>
• Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:26:50 -0700
• References: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E0696F701@r...>
• Reply-to: ktl@k...

I wrote that this is a problem:
> > 2) There are two kinds of names: names belonging to no
> > namespace and names belonging to a namespace.

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> If there are no default namespaces then there is no problem #2. If an
> element/attribute isn't prefixed then there is no ambiguity; It has no
> namespace name.

There is no ambiguity as to what an unprefixed name means,
but we still have two kinds of names.

> What have I missed?

If namespaces are collections of names, then a no-namespace
name belongs is an orphan -- it belongs to no collection.
Alternatively, to use WXS terminology, it is a chameleon --
it can belong to any collection.  Do you not recognize that
this is a fundamentally different kind of name than one with
a namespace, whether defaulted or not?

-- 
Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@k..., UTF-7: +Z5de+pBU-

• References:
  • RE: Default namespaces are *evil*! (RE: Global/Local attributes)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: RE: Default namespaces are *evil*! (RE: Global/Local attributes)
• Previous by thread: RE: Default namespaces are *evil*! (RE: Global/Local attributes)
• Next by thread: RE: Order to the madness (Default namespaces are *evil*!)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread