Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Andrew Layman <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 10:11:04 -0800
To add further support to Henry's statements below, I encourage everyone who
is keen to understand the implications of the namespaces specification to
first understand the specification itself, noting particularly that what is
actually there may be less than or different from the expectations one might
might bring to it. I don't say this by way of defending its scope or
attacking its detractors, but only to point out that the specification is
very limited and it is easy to draw conclusions based on premises that turn
out not to be anywhere in the specification.
With particular reference to to discussion below, the specification does not
use phrasing like "in a namespace". (Actually, it does, once, but only as a
comment to an example.) What the specification does do is provide syntax to
associate qualified names with URIs, thereby allowing certain names to be
Similarly, the specification avoids terminology suggesting that namespaces
are hierarchical, speaking instead of 'partitions.'
I will avoid the temptation to offer my own summary and explanation of the
specification, noting only that the present document already says the
maximum that a large number of people could agree to; that if we are
discussing the specification we first need to grasp what it actually does
and does not say; and that the starting point for doing this is to read what
is literally written there.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 5:50 AM
To: Roger L. Costello
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Schneider,John C.;
Subject: Re: XML Schema Question: default namespace misses attributes
"Roger L. Costello" <email@example.com> writes:
> Hi Folks,
> In the XML Schema spec all the examples use a default namespace for the
> XML Schema vocabulary. For example,
> <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema" ...>
> <element name="BookCatalogue">
> This example uses the XML Schema namespace as the default namespace.
> This meams, of course, that an XML Schema parser would then know that
> all non-qualified elements are from the XML Schema namespace. Thus, it
> would recognize "element" as a member of the XML Schema namespace.
> The XML Namespace document states (section 5.2 ) that attributes are
> not part of a default namespace, "Note that default namespaces do not
> apply directly to attributes." So, the "name" attribute above is not
> part of the XML Schema namespace. Matter of fact, "name" is in no
> namespace. I believe that it is an error for "name" to not be part of
> the XML Schema namespace. Right? We want an XML Schema parser to
> recognize "name" as being part of the XML Schema namespace. Right?
But "name" is scoped to its containing element, whether that uses
explicit (prefixed) or implicit (default) qualification. It's already
just like XSLT, where you see in the examples, e.g.
No qualification on 'match'.
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org