Lists Home |
Date Index |
David Carlisle writes:
> It's not clear to me that the namespaces spec did fail to recognise
> the relationship.
> It seems to me that in theory and practice the "traditional"
> attribute that is closely bound to its element is the unprefixed
> case. The fact that unprefixed attribute names don't pick up the
> namespace ensures that this association is kept.
> <x:foo bar="bogus"/>
The namespaces specification leaves the relationship anomalous by
providing no clear answer about the association. While its non-answer
and my proposal should work effectively the same in practice, that
notion doesn't appear to go down well with people who are happier with
specifications as written.
I'm always happier to err on the side of the explicit.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!