[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)
>That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Precisely what >are you suggesting we change in the Infoset, for example? I don't think Simon realistically expects any change to the Infoset. So it boils down to conventions for applications and vocabulary designers. The most obvious is that you should never give different meanings to x:a and a-on-an-x:-element, and I think everyone agrees with that. I'm not sure that anyone has ever done it (have they?). What else? There's no point in having a namespaced version of an attribute that is only ever used on elements from that namespace [*]. It's verbose and contrary to current practice. So the attributes at issue are the ones that need to be namespaced because they can be used on other elements - they're global attributes - and are *also* used on elements from that namespace. We could have say (a) Always use the namespaced version, even on elements from the same namespace. (b) Always use the unnamespaced version on elements from the same namespace. (c) Let users do whichever they like, and ensure that applications treat them both the same. (a) makes instances more verbose. (b) and (c) make applications and stylesheets longer and less readable, eg <xs:template match="@rdf:about|rdf:*/@about"> Always putting the attributes in a different namespace from the elements is much like (a). If you like (a), you might disagree with my claim [*] above, and say that for consistency *all* your attributes should be namespaced. -- Richard
|
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
|