Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: james anderson <James.Anderson@mecomnet.de>
- To: XML Developers' List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:39:59 +0100
The qualification on my claim was on the number of its promoters, not on its
necessity. It is not possible to guarantee an unambiguous attribute default -
or type, or anything about it, unless the attribute name is mapped to its
equivalent universal identifier. One may claim that the qualified name
suffices, but a) that is not complete, b) in some situations where it
succeeds, it already effectively enforces half of the specified namespace
mapping (true, the redundant half) as soon as it performs the name resolution
relative to the element identifier for names without prefixes.
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> At 07:27 PM 1/26/99 +0100, james anderson wrote:
> >i suspect i stand in a (very small) minority on this issue, but with respect
> >to the diagram (http://www.simonstl.com/articles/layering/layered2.gif.) the
> >"namespace transformation" should appear at least above "attribute
> >defaulting". i fear i stand in an even smaller minority on the second claim -
> >that it belongs above entity resolution. perhaps not in the current spec, but
> >time will tell.
> You certainly could put it above attribute defaulting if you liked; part of
> what I'm proposing is putting that kind of control in the hands of the
> application developer rather than the parser author. Personally, I use
> attribute defaults for most of my namespace declarations, but your
> situation may definitely vary.
It's not a matter of the situation.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)