[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Namespaces blur (A multi-step approach on defining object-
On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 13:51, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > At 8:35 AM +0200 8/22/02, Eric van der Vlist wrote: > > > >This is wanted per the namespaces rec for attributes: local > >(unqualified) attributes do not have namespace URIs but are considered > >to "belong" to the namespace of their parent element > > I really don't like this model. I know what you're trying to do but I > think it causes too much confusion. I think it's much more accurate > and less confusing to say "local (unqualified) attributes do not have > namespace URIs but are considered to "belong" to their parent > element", not to belong to the namespace of their parent element. > What does it mean to belong to a namespace anyway? That's not fully accurate either since it's leading to think that global (qualified) attributes do not belong to their parent element which isn't true... I thing that it's making my point that attributes (and in a lesser way elements) are defined not only by their own namespace URI (when they have one) but also by the namespace URIs of their ancestors :-) ... Eric -- Rendez-vous à Paris. http://www.technoforum.fr/integ2002/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com (W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
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
|