Cart
|
[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)
 David Carlisle writes: > > If you want to think of it that way, it's fine, but I don't think > > applications should have to worry very hard about it. > > I don't _want_ to think that way, but it seems your proposed > chaneg would force me to think of them that way. > If I have two elements <x:foo a=".."/> and <x:bar a=".."/> > then currently I can think of the a attributes being unnamespaced > and so not having any global definition, and so in particular having > definition derived from their elements. I'm not suggesting that unprefixed attributes should be treated as global attributes. I think you're reading far too much into the little I've actually said. I'm saying that in the context of a given element, attributes should be treated as having the namespace context of their containing element rather than treated as having an ambiguous namespace context. > If on the other hand things are changed so that each of these is > considered to be the a attribute in the namespace bound to x: > then don't doesn't that lead to the conclusion that these attributes > having the same globally unique namespaced name ought to be the same > attribute and taht furthermore, being a an attribute with a gloably > unique name, it ought to be a global attribute that can be used > anywhere? No, again you're reading too much into this. I'm not proposing any such global promotion. > > (I've used html:href myself in IE, where there's no other way to > > make a link in XML, but I think it's pretty plainly a horrible > > kluge.) > > But currently that is just wrong (Html doesn't have a globally > defined href attribute). My objection to your suggestion is that it > would make this right as the href attribute on img would become an > href in teh html namespace. Again, you're objecting to something well beyond the scope of my proposal. > > but I'm not sure what to think > > of its rejection of xsl:version on XSLT elements. I'd guess overall > > that it's a mistake, > > It's needed given the current namespace spec, otherwise you'd have to > say what to do if you had version="1" xsl:version="2" and as we all > agree someone (either xml namespaces or xslt spec) had better say > don't do that. That or they could simply have required the value to be the same, or permitted one or the other. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com 
|
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
|
|||||||||
