[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Permit me to reiterate the objection to a "global" namespace declaration in this light.
Arjun Ray wrote:
>
> "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@allette.com.au> wrote:
>
> | But this is discussing techniques before requirements.
>
> Which is exactly how this namespace bogosity came about. Are people now
> entitled to claim precedent?
>
In whatever grade of esteem one may hold the Namespaces in XML recommentation, it specifies that a conforming document may
contain lexically identical qualified names which identify more than one universal name depending on context as well as
lexically distinct qualified names which identify the same universal name - the synonymy/homography issue.
If DSDL chooses to ratify a namespace declaration form which exhibits indefinite scope, it must also either specify that such
documents are non-conformant, or specify that such documents are not permitted to depend on attribute default values for
namespace declarations, but must include all namespace declarations in the document entity.
I have no objection to the <!NAMESPACE ...> form itself. Each would denote a binding analogous to those which any
namespace-aware processor already manages for the "xml", "xmlns", and "" prefixes. It just precludes description of the same
class of documents which the xml-names recommendation permits.
...
|
