[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Amy Lewis writes:
> Item 5 in the description of the element information item. "An
> unordered set of attribute information items .... Namespace
> declarations do not appear in this set." SAX2 gets this right. DOM
> does not, since namespace declarations are represented in the DOM tree
> as attributes.
>
> > and even though a namespace declaration *is* an attribute, treating
it
>
> I repeat, read the infoset. A namespace declaration is *not* an
> attribute, in infoset terms.
As long as we're arguing about the Infoset, I have to say that I find
the decision of XPath to consider namespace declarations something other
than attributes and of the Infoset to put them in a separate [namespace
attributes] box to be a painful sign that abstractions are dangerous to
useful syntax. I have no idea who decided we all needed to be protected
from namespace declarations this way, but I've yet to see a
justification for it.
Namespaces in XML states:"A namespace is declared using a family of
reserved attributes. Such an attribute's name must either be xmlns or
have xmlns: as a prefix. These attributes, like any other XML
attributes, may be provided directly or by default."
Sounds to me like a set of attributes.
SAX2 does provide an option for reporting namespace declarations as
attributes, even when namespace-aware processing is turned on.
But hey, we all know why the namespaces spec exists: to create pointless
arguments! (Ditto for the Infoset spec.)
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
