[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray wrote:
> Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
> > Yes, and you've completely missed my point yet again. I'm not arguing
> > that prefixed attributes should be in the namespace of the element
> > containing them. I'm arguing that _unprefixed_ attributes should be
> > treated as if they had the same namespace as the element containing
> > them.
>
> I mostly agree. You've argued that doing the following
>
> <x:y xmlns:x="http://example.com/"; x:a="1" a="2" />
>
> while legal per the ns rec, is idiotic and shouldn't be done. Agreed.
It may not be too late for RDF, but it is too late for XHTML. XHTML 1.0
enshrines the following as best practice, even in its non-normative
section:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
What are the ramifications of this?
And is it idiotic to use namespaces for attribute versioning?
In other words, what's wrong with
<part catalogNum="old-123" new:catalogNum="new-456"/>
and does it matter if part has inherited a namespace from an ancestral xmlns?
- Mike
____________________________________________________________________________
mike j. brown | xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/
denver/boulder, colorado, usa | resume: http://skew.org/~mike/resume/
|
