[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> However, I would think that in the case above that "attr2" should belong to
> the default namespace, not the namespace that "elem2" belongs to.
I don't see why.
Even if you thought that would have been a better design in the
beginning it is a far more radical change than Simon has proposed and
would break nearly all existing uses of attributes.
The overwhelming majority of attributes in existing document are
unprefixed. You would change the way _all_ these are reported.
> If you want, you could have a fall-back rule that
> says a non-prefixed attribute would belong to no namespace if a default
> namespace is not defined.
well you'd have to have that rule wouldn't you? otherewise what would be
the initial state for interpretting unprefixed attributes?
> At this point, everything is explicit,
It's no more explicit than the current REC, just different.
> In fact, we tend to refer to elements/attributes that are not in a
> namespace to be global.
you do? maybe that is the source of confusion. Namespace spec defines
"global attribute" to mean "attribute in a namespace".
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.
|
