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

Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:52:33 +0100 (BST)
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-627F11D4A4D211D693BB0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

>I'm arguing that _unprefixed_ attributes should be
>treated as if they had the same namespace as the element containing
>them.

I think I agree with Simon on this, though naturally in more moderate
terms.

As I understand it, an argument for treating them differently is that
a prefixed attribute's meaning should be defined *only* by its
namespace - so it's a kind of global attribute - whereas an unprefixed
attribute can mean different things on different elements from the
same namespace.  Attributes like xml:lang and, say, name fit this
pattern well.  But in cases like rdf:about it breaks down so badly
that I think it would have been better to say that foo:attr and attr
on foo:elem are the same.

I'm sure we'll have widespread support if we make it an amendment to
Namespaces 1.0.

Yes, I'm joking of course.  I really think it's too late to change it,
and the most reasonable workaround is to always use the prefixed form
when it exists.

-- Richard

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: CSS XSL Tranformation
• Next by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread