[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: xml prefix

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: xml prefix
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 00:32:41 -0400
• References: <r01050400-1026-42A762B3864811D783370003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

[Simon St.Laurent]

> My second concern is with this case:
>
> <myDoc xmlns:foo="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
>        foo:base="http://example.com"
>        foo:space="preserve"
>        foo:lang="en"  />
>
> Does anyone know if that can be treated as equivalent to:
>
> <myDoc
>        xml:base="http://example.com"
>        xml:space="preserve"
>        xml:lang="en"  />
>
> The 'foo' version is definitely not specified, but I see no prohibitions
> on this form in:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006
>

I think the xml:base Rec is fairly clear, actually -

"The attribute xml:base may be inserted in XML documents to specify a base
URI other than the base URI of the document or external entity"

Nowhere does it say that the xml:base is an arbitrary prefix bound to its
corresponding namespace by means of a namespace declaration.  On the
contrary, it says that specifically the "xml" prefix is the one that is
bound to http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace  (so it is bound __by
definition__, not be declaration).

Neither does the Rec say that any other prefix can be used to mean the same
thing.

I read this to mean that only the exact string "xml:base" must have the
desired magic properties, and that "xml" does not have to be declared at all
as a namespace prefix.

Will some processor interpret foo:base the same way if "foo" is bound to the
right namespace?  The Rec is silent on that.

Cheers,

Tom P

> On the other hand, the namespace errata state:
> "The xml namespace could work like any other, were it not that the
> xml:space and xml:lang attributes are required to use that prefix, but
> it was considered too confusing to allow anything more than declaring it
> normally." - http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata , NE05
>
> This feels like a stronger statement to me than anything in XML 1.0
> itself, and I'm not sure it applies to XML Base in any case.

• References:
  • xml prefix
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML:lang, clarification demanded
• Next by Date: Re: What are the characteristics of a good type system for XML?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml prefix
• Next by thread: Schema for Programming Language
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread