- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:33:43 -0400
- To: francis@redrice.com
- Cc: Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com, ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, ijs@decisionsoft.com, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
Francis Norton writes:
>> True, and if they're going to to happen they're going to
>> happen. But they'll have to replace the sentence from section 5.2
>> of the namespace spec:
>>
>> "If the URI reference in a default namespace declaration is
>> empty, then unprefixed elements in the scope of the declaration
>> are not considered to be in any namespace."
>>
>> with something like:
>>
>> "If the URI reference in a default namespace declaration is
>> empty, then unprefixed elements in the scope of the declaration
>> are unqualified but may or may not be considered to be in some
>> other namespace for which a non-default namespace declaration is
>> also in scope."
>>
>> Francis.
I don't see why that follows. Does the NS rec say that for unqualified
attributes? I do see where you're coming from, but my reading of the NS
Rec is that it intentionally avoids any notion that an attribute on a
qualfied element is or is not "in a namespace".
<p:e a='2' xlmns:p="URIP"/>
Of course there's a sense in which the attribute a is indirectly in
namespace URIP, but per the NS rec only element "e" is actually said to be
"in the namespace". Why should an unqualified local element be any
different?
Note that there is a non-normative concept of a namespace partition. I'm
personally not fond of it, but I suspect it would be equally applicable
(and equally non-normative) in the case of local elements. Just my
opinion...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 14:38:49 UTC