[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Relative Namespaces
- From: Jeff Rafter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Thomas B. Passin" <email@example.com>,Charles Reitzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:47:01 -0800
Thanks for the comments...
I did some hunting for that quote and I think the issue for me is suddenly
more clouded. Tim Bray commented on the issue when Namespaces wrt SAX2 was
being discussed  in the January thread "SAX2: Namespace Processing and
NSUtils helper class"
'Pardon for flogging this possibly-dead horse, but you have to read the
text of the namespace spec carefully to realise that you just can't ever
have a namespace URI whose value is "". We should have put in a sentence
in section 5.2 saying "Note that as a consequence of this rule, it is not
possible to have a namespace whose value is the empty string."'
The mail cited is pretty much the final word in that discussion regarding
the null namespace issue. The DOM's interpretation is mentioned a couple of
mails later, interestingly. This seems totally at odds with the DOM's
interpretation though the DOM wording is loose-- opting out because it "does
no lexical analysis"-- but it seems like it could check for an empty string
as easily as checking for null.
I think I am beginning to see some of the big picture here, but can someone
explain how the Schema view fits in?
Also to clarify-- is Tim saying that the following is pointless because it
equates to a prefixed name being treated as a non namespace name or is he
saying that the document is in error wrt to namespaces because the prefix
can not logically be resolved?
Thanks for all of the patience...