[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>But it isn't just syntactic minimization. Named namespaces and default
>namespaces are not they same.
The default namespace isn't *unnamed*. The name of a namespace is
its namespace URI. A default namespace is just one that you're using
without a prefix in this document.
> They have different semantics.
Using the default namespace mechanism to refer to a namespace does not
change the semantics of that namespace. The only difference is that
there's one thing you can't do with no-prefix that you can do with a
prefix, viz put an attribute in the namespace.
Just to be absolutely clear, given:
<bar xmlns="http://example.org"; xmlns:foo="http://example.org"; foo:att="1">
The element bar and the attribute foo:att are in the same namespace,
which happens to be the default namespace. There aren't two
namespaces that could have different semantics, there's only one.
There are two different *syntaxes*.
If you're taking an old document - or set of documents - and giving it
a namespace, you can usually choose not to require the attributes to
be in a namespace, so using no prefix will be fine.
To re-iterate what's been said several times before: whether
<foo:bar att="123">
and
<foo:bar foo:att="123">
are equivalent (and whether either is illegal) is a matter for the
application. It's something you as an author have to *choose* when
converting a non-namespaced vocabulary to use namespaces. If you
choose to allow or require namespaced attributes, you won't be able
to use the default namespace exclusively.
-- Richard
|
