[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jborden@attbi.com wrote:
> Just to hammer this point again. There is no requirement to be different. An XML Namespaces conformant application might or might not act differently and still properly claim conformance. Said another way, even though the range of interpretations are _not required_ to be the same, they might be.
So is it not then as I initially wondered, that in elaborating semantics through the processing of attribute instances, the element to which an attribute is attached may exert such influence that there is no discernible difference in the semantic outcome of process, regardless of what namespace an attribute might or might not be in? Or again, in other cases of process, the attribute namespace might be decisive and result in discernible differences in outcome? Therefore the sense in which Simon's suggestion is "wrong", as Tim asserts, is that it violates a distinction maintained in the formalism of namespaces, but in the terms in which it is offered (how to treat an attribute, presumably in processing it), Simon's suggestion may often, in fact, be the best practice, perhaps even the only practice actually
processable in the instance.
I began this by wondering whether the concept of 'in a namespace' had more than evanescent effect upon attributes as processed, particularly as compared with the influence exerted by an element because of the attribute's necessary dependence on it. I am increasingly convinced that the 'namespace' qualities, or namespace-derived properties of attributes cannot be identified in the general case.
Respectfully,
Walter Perry
|
