[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Aaron Skonnard asked:
> How is what you're saying different than the semantics implied by
> local scoping of elements/attributes (as defined in XSD)? If you
> assume local scoping, you're treating them as members of a namespace
> qualified node.
I'm suggesting something more explicit than the current mash of options
W3C XML Schema provides, and making it clear that we are only dealing
with the attributes case left anomalous by Namespaces in XML.
I'm not at all happy with W3C XML Schema's choice of adding yet more
scoping complexity to the existing situation. I can cope with
attributes, since, after all, they're in the same tag as the start of
the element, and maintaining state for that is pretty hard to avoid.
Implied semantics are horrible, but in this case (unlike elements) there
are really no semantics.
You might remember last year's discussion of these issue at about the
same time last year, and the code I wrote because I found the WXS
approach so deeply flawed:
<http://simonstl.com/projects/namespace/>
(It was Aaron's presentation at least year's OSCON which made me think
hard about a lot of this. Disagreement can be very helpful stuff.)
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
