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)
 > > > On what basis do you make this inference? > the purpose of putting an attribute (or element) into a namespace is to > ne able to refer to that attribute or element name unambiguously from > other contexts. That's the _only_ thing that xml namespaces do: give > a method of allocating globally unique names. > > so if you use an attribute in a namespace then the reason for doing that > (should) be so you can use that attribute in different contexts. > this is why xlink attruibutes (and xml:lang etc) are namespaced. Another unjustified logical leap, IMO. This is the reason for making specifications of attributes that can be used in other vocabularies. I don't see that it follows that it is the only justification for "putting attributes in a namespace". If your reasoning were to be followed, then the nasty SOAP and XSD pattern of non-namespaced child elements would make sense, and I can't accept that. Let's look at an XSLT example. <xsl:choose> <xsl:when...> <xsl:otherwise...> </xsl:choose> xsl:when and xsl:otherwise cannot appear outside xsl:choose, so by your reasoning, this should be better written <xsl:choose> <when...> <otherwise...> </xsl:choose> Since, as you say, the *only* reasin to give something a namespace is to allow it to be inserted willy-nilly into other vocabularies. Luckily, this premise of yours is not creditable. Constructs can be placed in the same namespace as other constructs in order to retain a close association with those other constructs, whether or not those contructs are meant to be inserted directly into other vocabularies. Namespaces group vocabularies, and not everything in a vobabulary has to be "global". > > This specification makes no assertions as to the proper usage of such > > attributes. The combination of the namespace name and the attribute name > > uniquely identifies the global attribute. > > in other words the phrase "global attribute" and "attribute in a > namespace" currently mean the same thing. which is why several people > have commented that unless you furher qualify something, a change that > puts unprefixed attributes into the namespace of their elements > will make them global attributes. > > Thus Simon's and your assertion that putting these attributes into a > namespace does not make them global is wrong. > It would of course be possible to change more of the namespace spec and > change the definition of a global attribute. If that was done carefully > the objections might go away but without seeing all the proposed > changes, who can tell. As I've already said, the definition of a global attribute is not important. If you are saying that you want to see Simon and me write a complete anf formal revision of the namespace spec before making odd logical leaps about what we're trying to say, then I'm afraid we just won't be able to have a fruitful discussion. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/ Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra ry/x-jclark.html Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF - http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A 1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC 
|
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
|
|||||||||
