[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Carlisle" <davidc@nag.co.uk>
>
> > I agree. It is a radical change. However, the reasoning behind it was
that
> > you currently have no way of using attributes defined in the default
> > namespace, which seems counter-intuitive to me.
>
> "no way" is putting it too strongly. You just have to declare a prefix
> and use that. Same is true to refer to such elements in Xpath
> it's quite common to declare the same namesapce with "" and with a non
> empty prefix.
Then what is the point of having the default namespace?
> > In the end, however, I agree with Dare that the better thing would be to
get
> > rid of default namespaces.
>
> "default namespace" is just a namespace which has a current binding to a
> prefix of "" together with a syntactic quirk that if the prefix is ""
> then you omit the ":" isn't it?
Yes, that's what the default namespace is. Of course, that also just
happens to be the same format for local elements and attributes (what I
refer to as being in the "document namespace"). As a result, it is
difficult to use elements in both the default and document namespace at the
same time. The simple solution is to use a prefixed namespace instead
(though I know you can "undefine" the default namespace as well). Then I
have to ask the same question again: What is the point of having the
default namespace?
---
Seairth Jacobs
seairth@seairth.com
|
