[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
- From: Peter Piatko <email@example.com>
- To: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:12:16 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bray" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 9:05 PM
Subject: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
> At 05:19 PM 24/08/01 -0700, Evan Lenz wrote:
> >Yes, and so it should, and so they should. In my world, types and names
> >not necessarily the same thing.
> I agree. Unfortunately, XML 1.0 uses "type" to mean "name",
> essentially. I think Evan has hit the bull's-eye here.
> Are we making progress? -Tim
I agree too. I'll try to push this even further. I'm inclined to believe
that some of this confusion came about because of the interpretation of
unqualified attributes in the non-normative appendix of the Namespace rec
"The Per-Element-Type Partitions
Each type in the All Element Types Partition has an associated namespace in
which appear the names of the unqualified attributes that are provided for
that element. This is a traditional namespace because the appearance of
duplicate attribute names on an element is forbidden by XML 1.0. The
combination of the attribute name with the element's type and namespace name
uniquely identifies each unqualified attribute."
What was the problem with the simpler interpretation that unqualified
attributes were in the same namespace as their containing element? Then
there would be no need for Per-Element-Type partitions at all (and hence the
confusion of unqualified local elements).