[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> On what basis do you make this inference?
the purpose of putting an attribute (or element) into a namespace is to
ne able to refer to that attribute or element name unambiguously from
other contexts. That's the _only_ thing that xml namespaces do: give
a method of allocating globally unique names.
so if you use an attribute in a namespace then the reason for doing that
(should) be so you can use that attribute in different contexts.
this is why xlink attruibutes (and xml:lang etc) are namespaced.
> This specification makes no assertions as to the proper usage of such
> attributes. The combination of the namespace name and the attribute name
> uniquely identifies the global attribute.
in other words the phrase "global attribute" and "attribute in a
namespace" currently mean the same thing. which is why several people
have commented that unless you furher qualify something, a change that
puts unprefixed attributes into the namespace of their elements
will make them global attributes.
Thus Simon's and your assertion that putting these attributes into a
namespace does not make them global is wrong.
It would of course be possible to change more of the namespace spec and
change the definition of a global attribute. If that was done carefully
the objections might go away but without seeing all the proposed
changes, who can tell.
David
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
|
