[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
> > How would this distinction (which is old hat and agreed upon by
> > *everyone* in this discussion) be impaired by the specification that
> > unprefixed attributes are in their element's namespace?
>
> because currently attributes that are in a namespace are global,
> attributes that are not in a namespace are not global. This is a simple
> rule that appears to work well as far as I can see.
Our alternate rule is just as simple:
Attributes in the same namespace as their element are local. Attributes in a
different namespace are global.
In fact, I think this reads far more logically.
So what am I missing?
> The proposed change says to consider unprefixed attributes as being in
> a namespace, so either they become global, or the above rule has to
> change (to some as yet unspecified alternative).
Who says they must be local just because they're in a namespace. I'm not
aware of any scoping mechanism in any technology that has such a weird
distinction.
Usually "global" things are those defined in a context that doesn't
immediately enclose them, while "local" things are defined in the nearest
enclosing context. But this convention, local attributes would be those in
the namespace of their owner element, not those in no namespace at all (which
actually strikes me as the most "global" category there is).
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF - http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC
|
