Lists Home |
Date Index |
David Carlisle wrote:
> > The namespaces specification leaves the relationship anomalous by
> > providing no clear answer about the association.
> true (apart from a slightly incoherent non normative appendix)
> but isn't that as it should be. Ie at about the same level as the
> relationship between
> ie totally unspecified at the level of XML 1.0 (or XML namespaces)
I think that's a weak comparison at best, especially from the
perspective (which monasticxml.org takes explicitly) that attributes are
meta-markup, adding extra information about the nature of elements
rather than being their children in any sense.
In any event, the namespace status of child elements is clearly known,
at least until W3C XML Schema's unqualified child elements poisons the
context situation further.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!