Re: [xml-dev] Element equivalence under XML Namespaces

["bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com>]

I should note that obviously the argument of starting with xml being
reserved applies to xmlns is a side-effect of the intended use of the
reservation as specified, that intended use being what Robin said.



On Jan 17, 2008 3:18 PM, bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2. XML or xml is reserved. I don't think xmlns is defined as a
> > > namespace declaration anywhere but it seems sort of implied.
> >
> > Any casing of "xml" being reserved isn't necessarily namespaces
> > related, it also allows the introduction of future features with
> > specific semantics (as happened with the belated xml:id).
> >
> Yes I know, however if you have XML like this:
>
> <a xmlns="http://example.org/namespacesexample"/>
>
> what is that xmlns? In the XML spec as currently written I don't think
> that is understood to be clearly a namespace [maybe it is somewhere in
> there, I can just remember the : is specified but no other reference
> is made as to the meaning of namespaces]?  But because starting with
> xml is reserved that implies that xmlns has a W3C determined meaning.
> W3C has published another document that describes what the meaning of
> xmlns is, the namespace spec. So I would say that in the case of
> 'xmlns without :' then it may not be that the XML spec knows about the
> existence of namespaces in that case but it would have to know that
> there must be a specification that handled that special case or it
> would have to assume that the above example was not well-formed.
>
> Actually I am finding it awkward at this point to talk about what the
> XML spec knows since being a spec it obviously knows nothing. This is
> more the case of what an XML parser must know at a minimum, and it
> must know - even without 'understanding' namespaces that xmlns is
> allowed, and because it MUST know that little bit I suppose it becomes
> reasonable for it to know just as well what xmlns 'means'.
>
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
>