OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] elementFormDefault [was:Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden]

Hi Mike,

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
> Yes, it's by design, but it's a bad design, in my view.

I won't argue over this. I respect your opinion.

> Someone thought attributes and elements should be symmetric, so the choice of "same
> namespace as parent" and "no namespace" should be available for both.

I think the current concept is, that default namespaces are not
available to attributes. I seem to remember lots of discussions (on
this list as well) on parent-child relationship between XML elements
and attributes. The XML spec seems to simply say, here is an element
and here are attributes of this element. It doesn't say that element
is parent node of an attribute (but XPath spec says that -- it defines
a formal model of an XML tree that's useful for languages like XSLT
and XQuery for example).

But I really don't have any opinion on your point:
    "so the choice of "same namespace as parent" and "no namespace"
should be available for both".

> But very few people want to put child elements in no namespace

I personally find this useful (may be I'm amongst those few :). There
can be lot's of uses of this I believe. Here another quick example I
can think of (for example the schema author may want this kind of
lexical representation for instance documents):

<container:vector xmlns:container="http://mycontainerService";>

Mukul Gandhi

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS