[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 8:35 AM +0200 8/22/02, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>This is wanted per the namespaces rec for attributes: local
>(unqualified) attributes do not have namespace URIs but are considered
>to "belong" to the namespace of their parent element
I really don't like this model. I know what you're trying to do but I
think it causes too much confusion. I think it's much more accurate
and less confusing to say "local (unqualified) attributes do not have
namespace URIs but are considered to "belong" to their parent
element", not to belong to the namespace of their parent element.
What does it mean to belong to a namespace anyway?
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
