OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

 


 

   Re: [xml-dev] Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: [xml-dev] Un-ask thequestion)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


Greetings,

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Joe English wrote:

> David Carlisle  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's entirely true.  However, after re-re-reading [XMLNS]
> A.1 "The Insufficiency of the Traditional Namespace" and
> A.2 "XML Namespace Partitions" several times, I'm coming
> to the conclusion that this entire section is essentially
> meaningless.  At most, it indicates a "Best Common Practice."

Hear, hear.  Appendix A has _never_ made any sense, and appears as
nothing more than a hobby-horse that someone has managed to back into
the spec.  It doesn't even indicate best-practice, since all it says
is that "`global attributes' are proctological ones (to use Joe's
term): they are commonly observed to occur in a variety of
applications".

There are no deductions you can make about the behaviour or semantics of
`global attributes' based on the text of this appendix.  In particular,
I do not believe you can deduce (as David wants to do) that a `global
attribute' is valid on any element in the same namespace.  The spec
says nothing about which attributes are valid where.

The term `global attribute' adds nothing, and thus the worry about
whether something is a `global attribute' or not appears not to
matter.  An attribute is in a namespace or it isn't; if it is then
it's subject to generic namespace processing; if it's not, it isn't.

The only question that matters is:
   What is the rule for determining the namespace of an attribute?

The spec's rule is an evasive one; Simon's edit does not affect the rule,
but consists of suggested behaviour for applications; the whole problem
would largely disappear if default namespaces disappeared.  (is that
correct?)

All the best,

Norman


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Gray                        http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/
Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK     norman@astro.gla.ac.uk





 

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS