xml-dev - Re: Mapping XHTML to XLink via Architectural Forms

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 11:12 AM 10/27/00 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>> It's not entirely clear what the namespace status of that attribute is
>> (since the default NS doesn't apply to attributes), but it's reasonably
>> clear that it hasn't been defined as a 'global attribute' as described in
>> (non-normative) A.2 of Namespaces in XML. [3]
>>
>    I agree that this is another wrinkle on the same problem. Curious...I
>think there is no question about the namespace status of the "STYLE"
>attribute under any circumstance. I'm not exactly sure what the
>(non-normative!) meaning of a "global attribute" is, but I think it is quite
>clear from XML Names that the attribute "STYLE" or "CLASS" has an empty
>namespace-uri() and a local-name()="STYLE", or another way of saying this is
>that the "STYLE" attribute is not within a namespace REGARDLESS of which
>element it is declared within, or the presence of a default namespace on
>that element.

I think the question here is simpler, though the current situation does
raise the questions you addressed in the rest of your message.

_Should_ attributes like this be 'global' attributes?  It seems odd to me
to have XLink doing such work for linking while leaving STYLE on a
case-by-case basis.  

I definitely _don't_ want to see STYLE or style made into an effectively
reserved word within local names.


Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books