[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> W. E. Perry scripsit:
>
> > To return to the narrower question with which this began, is it not
> > John and Tim who are arguing, in effect, that we must assign a different
> > interpretation in the processing of a attribute that is in no namespace
> > than we might assign in processing the same attribute as if it were in
> > the namespace of its element?
>
> No.
Tim Bray wrote:
> The document's recommendation to "treat unqualified attributes as being in the
> namespace of the element that contains them" is just wrong, will lead to poor
> interoperability, and should not be followed.
John Cowan wrote:
> It means that, under the Namespaces Rec, the following pair is equivalent:
>
> <foo xmlns="urn:baz:32" bar="47"/>
> <baz:foo xmlns:baz="urn:baz:32" bar="47"/>
>
> but the following pair is not:
>
> <foo xmlns="urn:baz;32" bar="47"/>
> <baz:foo xmlns:baz="urn:baz:32" baz:bar="47"/>
A distinction without a difference?
Does this mean that, in practice, the distinction which you point to under the
Namespaces Rec requires no difference in how instances are, in fact, processed?
That Simon's suggestion to treat (for which I read, 'process') them as being in
the namespace of the element that contains them is as good a way to proceed as any
other? Or that there is no consequence in processing (and therefore in the
semantics ultimately elaborated in any instance) for making the distinction
between an attribute being in no namespace versus being in the namespace of its
element?
I began this wondering if there were any difference discernible in processing and
in the outcome of processing. Are you saying that there is none?
Respectfully,
Walter Perry
|
