W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2004

Re: XHTML attributes and namespace, clarification needed

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:20:35 +0100
Message-ID: <41C05643.6030607@expway.fr>
To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Laurens Holst wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>> "The namespace name for an unprefixed attribute name always has no 
>> value."
> Where exactly is that stated in http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/ ? I 
> searched for it in both the XML and Namespaces in XML documents, but did 
> not find it. That is why people specify sources when they quote.

I used the latest version of the spec. There's little point complaining 
that superseded versions are unclear.

> All I needed was an actual quote from the spec, not Latin, thank you.

Well no offense but if you had actually read the spec before commenting 
at length on it you would've needed neither.

> Anyways, wasn't there some kind of ban on XML 1.1 because it introduced 
> all kinds of incompatibilities with XML 1.0? Is quoting from that spec a 
> good idea?

How is that relevant? Namespaces 1.1 applies to XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 
equally. All it did was allow IRIs and a mechanism for undeclaration. As 
far as I've heard, it's been pretty much well received.

Besides, there's no ban on XML 1.1. Some people, mostly Microsoft, don't 
like it. I wouldn't believe everything that they say.

> Actually, I read the following sentence in the Errata for the Namespaces 
> in XML 1.0 document:
> "Namespace Scoping
> Change the first paragraph of section 5.1 to read:
>     A namespace declaration is considered to apply to the element where 
> it is specified and its attributes, and to all elements and their 
> attributes within the content of that element, unless overridden by 
> another namespace declaration with the same NSAttName part."
> ... note in particular the use of 'and its attributes'.
> So it seems that's not just all there is to it.

*sigh* It's a spec, not a bunch of tea leaves. All the above says is 
that namespaces declared on an element are in scope for the element 
itself and its attributes. You're again trying to see things in the spec 
that simply aren't there. I tell you, that's the number one reason why 
people think namespaces are hard. I'd love to know why that is though.

Robin Berjon
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 15:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:16 UTC