[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 13:51, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> 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?
That's not fully accurate either since it's leading to think that global
(qualified) attributes do not belong to their parent element which isn't
true...
I thing that it's making my point that attributes (and in a lesser way
elements) are defined not only by their own namespace URI (when they
have one) but also by the namespace URIs of their ancestors :-) ...
Eric
--
Rendez-vous à Paris.
http://www.technoforum.fr/integ2002/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
