[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: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>,"'David Carlisle'" <davidc@n...>
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
• Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:25:17 -0600
• Cc: <uche.ogbuji@f...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-DBD61CA0A57111D693BB0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

> 
> David Carlisle writes:
> > The proposed change says to consider unprefixed attributes as being
in
> > a namespace, so either they become global, or the above rule has to
> > change (to some as yet unspecified alternative).
> 
> I think this may be the heart of the communications problem.
> 
> My proposal DOES NOT state that local attributes should be treated as
> global attributes.  It says that local attributes should be treated as
> if they have the namespace of the containing element, rather than
> floating in ambiguous semi-local-land.

I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm failing to see is how
this simplifies anything from the coder's perspective if it doesn't
impact the way attributes are reflected in the APIs (as Tim Bray noted).
Developers still have to know your rule when writing the code. How would
it be any less confusing than it is now? 

-aaron
http://staff.develop.com/aarons

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

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

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• 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