[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: QNames in attribute values
> From: Evan Lenz [mailto:elenz@x...] <snip/> > Let me rephrase the question: Is it too late to require > QNames in values to > be resolved with an application-level namespace declaration? Ah. I see what you are getting at. I misread your initial post. I still think it doesn't make sense to have one mechanism for attribute values and another for element and attribute names. I think consistency for this is going to be less complicated and less confusing than having one mechanism for element and attribute names, and another for values. I think the issue of whether both should not rely upon some application-level declaration is a different issue from whether there should be separate requirements for each. I think the former is highly problematic as a general model, but is far more acceptable than having different models for names and values. The issue of relying upon some top-level declarations for namespaces vs. the current model has been rehashed many times, though, and there have been use cases brought up to defend the current model. If we are stuck with this model, then I think it should be used consistently rather than mixing and matching mechanisms for namespace declarations (although specific applications may have a need to require some top-level declarations).
|
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
|