Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Kay wrote:
> > Actually, I think we disagree only on the point of whether
> > non-qualified names in the absence of a default namespace are
> > "in" a namespace. We both agree that they can be treated as
> > being in a null namespace, and both theory and practice
> > proceed nicely from that point.
> There is no null namespace. We can say that the namespace of a name is
> null, meaning that the name is in no namespace; but it is wrong to say
> that the name is in the null namespace, because there is no such thing.
> Of course, there is a set of names containing all names that are in no
> namespace, and since a namespace is essentially a set of names (despite
> the assertion of the Namespaces REC to the contrary), it would have been
> easy and elegant to define this set as a namespace; but the spec chose
> not to do that. Every namespace is a set of names, but not every set of
> names is a namespace.
There is a set of names which is named "".
[Definition:] An XML namespace is a collection of names, identified by a URI reference [RFC2396], ...
The null prefix is bound to this set by default. The null prefix is the only prefix which a conforming document can bind to this
namespace. In which ways is this set of names not a namespace?