[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
David Carlisle wrote:
>
> > I note that the recommendation specifies a notion which is untenable.
> > ...
> > I do take issue with claims that this set does not exist.
>
> I suspect that the reason for not calling it a namespace is that you are
> supposed to think of it as multiple sets which are not distinguished in
> the syntax.
This conflates the behaviour of sets of names with that of the mechanisms which bind names to other things, like element and
attribute declarations.
>
> That is, if you have two documents that contain the element
> {http://www.w3.org/1998/math/MathML}math then they are references to the
> same element in the same set (the mathml namespace)
>
> However if you have two documents referencing {}math then arguably they
> are not intended to be the same element, It may be that they are in
> different sets of elements but that the XML namespace syntax does not
> distinguish that (maybe the application does using other info, eg the doctype).
>
...
|
