• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
• From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:05:28 +0200
• Cc: amyzing@t..., xml-dev@l...
• References: <1a4.713d801.2a9396f0@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020721

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:
> I hesitate to comment on this having twice had my knuckles rapped this 
> week - by Tim Bray and Norman Walsh - for believing what a W3C Rec 
> states... :) ... but the Namespace in XML Recommendation seems to say 
> the opposite to what you "repeat, ad nauseam":

i guess the infoset gets it just right by defining that namespace 
declarations are in fact attributes, but special attributes. telling 
people that namespace declarations are not attributes seems to be 
motivated (at least i think so) by the attempt to save people from poor 
implementations which are not smart enough to see namespace declarations 
as special attributes (and maybe they should even complain if people try 
to create 'regular' attributes which appear to have namespace 
declaration syntax).

cheers,

dret.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>

• References:
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
• Next by Date: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was: Re: linking, 80/20]
• Previous by thread: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
• Next by thread: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread