[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>I'm arguing that _unprefixed_ attributes should be
>treated as if they had the same namespace as the element containing
>them.
I think I agree with Simon on this, though naturally in more moderate
terms.
As I understand it, an argument for treating them differently is that
a prefixed attribute's meaning should be defined *only* by its
namespace - so it's a kind of global attribute - whereas an unprefixed
attribute can mean different things on different elements from the
same namespace. Attributes like xml:lang and, say, name fit this
pattern well. But in cases like rdf:about it breaks down so badly
that I think it would have been better to say that foo:attr and attr
on foo:elem are the same.
I'm sure we'll have widespread support if we make it an amendment to
Namespaces 1.0.
Yes, I'm joking of course. I really think it's too late to change it,
and the most reasonable workaround is to always use the prefixed form
when it exists.
-- Richard
|
