[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 11:52:39 -0800
At 11:41 AM 1/5/00 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
>To be clearer, the cases correspond to these XML documents:
> - undeclared prefix (error for namespace, but legal XML)
> <prefix:EXAMPLE />
In SAX2, if namespace processing is turned on (the default) this clearly
has to be handled as an error.
> - default namespace (per namespace spec, sections 2, 5.2)
> <root xmlns="http://foo">
> <EXAMPLE xmlns:prefix="" />
> </root>
Likewise. xmlns:prefix="" is always an error per the namespace spec.
Er, did you mean <EXAMPLE xmlns="">? If so, it's correct and EXAMPLE is
not in any namespace.
> - Some URI
> <prefix:EXAMPLE xmlns:prefix="http://foo" />
What's the problem here?
>That is, there's a distinction between "declaration needed and missing"
>and "default namespace".
Indeed. The first is an error, the second is legal. I'm feeling stupid,
because I think I'm missing your point.
>Since the XML standard doesn't directly incorporate the namespaces
>spec (and make the first case be a fatal error), there needs to be
>some way to deal with that first case, and some way that it'll be
>exposed through APIs.
The only way to expose the first case is as an error. What am I missing?
-Tim
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
