[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> I mostly agree. You've argued that doing the following
>
> <x:y xmlns:x="http://example.com/"; x:a="1" a="2" />
>
> while legal per the ns rec, is idiotic and shouldn't be done.
> Agreed. You've further argued that it was a design error that
> the ns rec allws this. Agreed.
>
> Where we may disagree is, if you're making an API, you'd better
> not report the final attribute above (to use JJC's notation) as
> {http://example.com}a, whether or not the first attribute is
> there or not. For better or worse, at the API level, the final
> attribute there has a local part of "a" and no namespace name,
> but is attached to an element with a namespace name. -Tim
+1
I thought what Simon meant by "treat unprefixed attributes as part of
the same namespace as the owner element" contradicted this. If not, then
"treating" attributes this way is just additional application semantics
as with local scoping in XML Schema.
-aaron
http://staff.develop.com/aarons
|
