Re: Element equivalence under XML Namespaces
On Jan 17, 2008, at 11:40, bryan rasmussen wrote: >> No, it's not. Well-formedness is defined in the XML specification, >> and this >> doesn't know anything about namespaces; > > Not exactly, it knows some things about Namespaces but not enough to > specify semantic matching - I think it's sort of weird that. Things > that it knows that I can remember: > > 1. : should be used in definition of namespaces. IIRC this is because the group wanted to ship XML and not wait to have its work on namespaces finished. This makes the articulation of the specs a bit clunky, and the bit that helps is the sort of warning about : in names. > 2. XML or xml is reserved. I don't think xmlns is defined as a > namespace declaration anywhere but it seems sort of implied. Any casing of "xml" being reserved isn't necessarily namespaces related, it also allows the introduction of future features with specific semantics (as happened with the belated xml:id). -- Robin Berjon ........................................................................ "Generally, old media don't die. They just have to grow old gracefully. Guess what, we still have stone masons. They haven't been the primary purveyors of the written word for a while now of course, but they still have a role because you wouldn't want a TV screen on your headstone." -- Douglas Adams
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format