[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) wrote:
> Ummmm, sorry if this sounds stupid but why do xmlns declarations have to
> be reported as attributes? Why do they have to be reported at all?
That was exactly my question. Why are xmlns declarations reported as
attributes? XSLT has it right.
Bob
> All I care as a developer is the namspace of element/attribute nodes and
> that information is available on startElement.
>
> Giving me xmlns as an attribute will complicate my code.
>
> On the other hand, maybe I need some sleep.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Manos
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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. Then again, I doubt it matters much.
>> If no one presents a convincing argument, I'll just pick one of the
>> three at random.
>>
>>
>> Apathetically yours,
>>
>>
>> David
|
