[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> Bob Foster wrote:
>> That was exactly my question. Why are xmlns declarations reported as
>> attributes? XSLT has it right.
> I guess the reason for this is historical, in that
> http://xml.org/sax/features/namespace-prefixes feature has been around
> for a while and presumably some people are using it. In general it seems
> like a really bad idea, given that SAX reports startPrefixMapping() and
> endPrefixMapping().
>
> Since the feature is there I agree there should be a standard way of
> reporting the default namespace as an attribute to anyone who choses to
> process their XML in this way. My vote would be for David's alternative
> "b) an attribute with the Namespace URI "http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/";
> and no local name;" where "no local name" in the context of this
> paragraph should be interpreted as meaning a zero-length String.
Where did the "http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/"; URI come from? The
Namespaces In XML spec specifically says: "The prefix xmlns is used only
for namespace bindings and is not itself bound to any namespace name."
Am I missing some errata, or is there some complexity-multiplying going
on here? It sure seems like a SAX feature that should be dropped should
not be used to justify contradicting the namespaces recommendation.
Bob
|
