[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Unfortunately, it's not aesthetics, but the unknowably-sized matter of
> deployed base that concerns me. I think the best we can hope for is to
> say that the if an element is part of a namespace, then unqualified
> attribute names violate validity constraints. I *might* go along with
> "the result of their presence is undefined," but I think core XML has
> managed to avoid such "is out of scope" issues so far, and I'd hate to
> to be the first.
>
> How's that for a compromise?
That's not a compromise at all it would just break almost all documents
that use namespaces.
If I read the above right you are saying that
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
.....
<a href="foo.html">xxx</a>
should have an undefined meaning as a is in the html namespace and href
is unprefixed?
Perhaps you meant at the same time to change the rule so that the
default namespace applied to attributes. but then you break every
instance of
<html:a href="foo.html">,,,
David
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
|
