[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
David Carlisle writes:
> > If you want to think of it that way, it's fine, but I don't think
> > applications should have to worry very hard about it.
>
> I don't _want_ to think that way, but it seems your proposed
> chaneg would force me to think of them that way.
> If I have two elements <x:foo a=".."/> and <x:bar a=".."/>
> then currently I can think of the a attributes being unnamespaced
> and so not having any global definition, and so in particular having
> definition derived from their elements.
I'm not suggesting that unprefixed attributes should be treated as
global attributes. I think you're reading far too much into the little
I've actually said. I'm saying that in the context of a given element,
attributes should be treated as having the namespace context of their
containing element rather than treated as having an ambiguous namespace
context.
> If on the other hand things are changed so that each of these is
> considered to be the a attribute in the namespace bound to x:
> then don't doesn't that lead to the conclusion that these attributes
> having the same globally unique namespaced name ought to be the same
> attribute and taht furthermore, being a an attribute with a gloably
> unique name, it ought to be a global attribute that can be used
> anywhere?
No, again you're reading too much into this. I'm not proposing any such
global promotion.
> > (I've used html:href myself in IE, where there's no other way to
> > make a link in XML, but I think it's pretty plainly a horrible
> > kluge.)
>
> But currently that is just wrong (Html doesn't have a globally
> defined href attribute). My objection to your suggestion is that it
> would make this right as the href attribute on img would become an
> href in teh html namespace.
Again, you're objecting to something well beyond the scope of my
proposal.
> > but I'm not sure what to think
> > of its rejection of xsl:version on XSLT elements. I'd guess overall
> > that it's a mistake,
>
> It's needed given the current namespace spec, otherwise you'd have to
> say what to do if you had version="1" xsl:version="2" and as we all
> agree someone (either xml namespaces or xslt spec) had better say
> don't do that.
That or they could simply have required the value to be the same, or
permitted one or the other.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
