Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Megginson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XML-Dev Mailing list <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:23:16 -0400 (EDT)
Simon St.Laurent writes:
> I have some questions about the Namespaces Recommendation's
> (non-)treatment of processor behavior. Section 6, Conformance of
> Documents, states what is needed to ensure conformance but doesn't
> specify what a processor should do if it encounters
> non-conformance. Section 5.3, Uniqueness of Attributes, makes it
> illegal to have two attributes for an element that have identical
> qualified names, never mind the prefixes.
> How should XML processors handle these errors? Is the uniqueness
> of attributes issue equivalent to the XML 1.0 ban on attributes
> with the same name (section 3.1), or is it totally outside of that
> realm? There isn't any explicit relation expressed between these
> errors and well-formedness or validity constraints, and I'm not
> even sure a processor should flag an error.
For now, it's safest to think of Namespaces as an application layer on
top of XML rather than part of XML itself.
In fact, that distinction probably won't last for long -- the current
public XSL and Infoset working drafts, to give only two of many
possible examples, treat Namespaces as an integral part of XML, and if
there ever is an XML 1.1 or an XML 2.0, I'd be surprised not to see
Namespaces in it (together with Infoset).
All the best,
David Megginson firstname.lastname@example.org
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)