[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org> wrote:
| Maybe I'm too busy thrashing in the seaweed to get my head above water,
| but what would a namespaces spec without scoping look like?
The usual nightmare.
| Every element has to explicitly specify its namespace?
Of course.
| Unprefixed element/attribute names are in "no namespace" whatever that
| means?
No. *All* names are qualified. The "Motivation and Summary" section of
the Rec sez: "These considerations require that document constructs should
have universal names [...]". This is a whopping non sequitur, but if
you're willing to take it seriously, the obvious implication is that
*local* names are the "problem" for which "universal names" are the
solution. Anything else would be um, "ugly and complicated".
Well, sort of. "Scoping" is just a fancier name for minimization.
| Can the current spec be "profiled" to suggest sane best practice here,
| or does the spec itself have to be fixed to make un-scoped namespaces
| work properly?
The Namespace spec is a political document, not a technical one. You must
wait for the oracle.
|
