[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I may as well take this on directly, especially as Tim Bray has already
acknowledged that leaving unprefixed attributes in no namespace was "a
design error".
I take John's interpretation of the specification to be accurate, but
its implications to be decidedly wrong. The namespaces specification
made a simple but horrid mistake in failing to recognize the close
relationship between an attribute and its containing element. That
there is a difference between:
<x:foo x:bar="bogus"/>
and:
<x:foo bar="bogus"/>
seems like yet another consequence of a disastrous specification. As
monasticxml.org is a reflection of my complete impatience with broken
specifications, suggesting that practice treat this bogus distinction
without much respect seems entirely appropriate.
It's not like we need ANOTHER problem with this specification to shout
from the rooftops... It's time to start fixing stuff instead of just
letting bad decisions perpetuate themselves. In practice, I really
doubt that this will break ANY applications.
John Cowan writes:
> W. E. Perry scripsit:
>
> > But what does it mean, really, for an attribute to be 'in a
> namespace',
> > separate from that attribute appearing (or being declared in an
> ATTLIST as)
> > within the scope of a particular element?
>
> 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"/>
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
