Re: Change namespace of xml:id

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 09:59:52PM +1100, Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 12:32:29 PM, John wrote:
> JB> Yes, I agree that changing the prefix is appropriate
> JB> because the xml prefix itself is already bound to 
> JB> a URI that is associated with a particular set of names.
> 
> JB> Although namespace *prefixes* beginning with xml are
> JB> reserved for use by XML and XML-related applications, 
> JB> XML-related specs must still respect the fact that
> JB> a namespace associates a URI with a collection of names.
> JB> If one wants to change the collection of names, then one
> JB> must change the URI.

  Nothing in the Namespace in XML spec implies that this binding
is static as you're claiming.

> One can, but one need not. There are examples of both types of change
> policy.
> 
> The change policy for the XML namespace has already ben demonstrated,
> for example when xml:base was added to it.

  yes. The XML namespace name is also the only namespace:
    - which doesn't need to be declared
    - which can use the xml prefix
    - which cannot be bound to another prefix (though that point
      is more best practice than strict)
and we need this for xml:id . Multiplicating namespaces names for
XML would lead to way more confusion than the required fix to C14N
that xml:id raised.

> The meaning of 'reserved' is fairly clear. Another specification (such
> as XML canonicalization) should not be making assumptions about future
> registrations into the XMl namespace, since that namespace is reserved.

  Amen !

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/