[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Oh no no no no. Don't try to wriggle out of it. *You* said:
OK so I lied (or at least was "economical with the truth") in my
description of my earlier mail.
> Actually, this is the point I'm trying to make.
see I said we were in agreement really.
> Actually, this is the point I'm trying to make. The fact that an attribute
> has a namespace doesn't suddenly make it OK to use that attribute in
> any other vocabulary, which is the logical inference that you were making.
[*]No not that it is OK (it usually isn't) just that it is possible.
Currently there is no href attribute defined in the XHTMl namespace
so it's not possible to use that attribute elsewhere. if there was
such an attribute it would be possible to refer to it (as html:href)
whether it was OK or made sense to do so would of course depend on the
language.
My point is that by being able to put its attributes in no namespace
XHTML (and most other existing examples bar xlink) can restrict other
vocabularies from using the attributes. You lose this facility if
you just state that all the unprefixed attributes are in the namespace
of their parents. (You might reasonably argue you don't mind losing
this, but it is still a fact that it goes)
> . You've quoted this several times. I've ignored it because it seems
> largely irrelevant, and to the extent relevant, it only seems to
> corroborate what I'm saying. You seem to think otherwise.
> Can you explain?
I quoted it as answer to your comment that I was saying that namespaced
attributes should be allowed everywhere. ie the point I make in
different words above in the para marked [*]/
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.
|
