[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
David Megginson wrote:
>
> Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>
> > The local name property of the attribute information item for an xmlns
> > attribute is xmlns. The prefix property for the attribute information
> > corresponding to an xmlns attribute has no value. Therefore, when SAX
> > reports these I maintain that the local name should be xmlns, not the
> > empty string. The qualified name should also be xmlns. This is still a
> > showstopper issue, even allowing xmlns attributes into the
> > http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/ namespace.
>
> OK, people, what do we do here? Here are my opinions:
>
> 1. Anyone who writes an application that actually cares about the Namespace
> assigned to xmlns attributes is f#@$%@#$ed in the head and deserves whatever
> happens.
this is shortsighted.
>
> 2. That said, we still have a responsibility to try to do the right thing.
> If we get it wrong, though, it doesn't matter all that much (see #1).
>
> So, bearing all that in mind, what should we report for the following
> Namespace declaration?
>
> <foo xmlns="http://www.example.org/ns#"/>
>
> a) an attribute with no Namespace URI and the local name "xmlns";
>
> b) an attribute with the Namespace URI "http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/"; and
> no local name; or
>
> c) an attribute with the Namespace URI "http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/"; and
> the local name "xmlns".
>
> Note that none of these is a clean solution, probably because Namespaces 1.1
> is a bit broken.
agreed.
> Then again, I doubt it matters much.
disagreed.
> If no one presents a
> convincing argument, I'll just pick one of the three at random.
>
the only one which yields a coherent model is c. it does not matter how one
identifies namespace prefixes, but it does matter that the same criteria be
used for all.
> Apathetically yours,
...
|
