W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

[css3-namespace] Empty namespace vs. no namespace.

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:46:01 +0200
Message-ID: <502556E9.3010207@kozea.fr>
To: www-style@w3.org
Hi,

In section 2.1:
> In CSS Namespaces a namespace name consisting of the empty string is
> taken to represent the null namespace or lack of a namespace.


In section 3.1:
> All strings—including the empty string and strings representing
> invalid URIs—are valid namespace names in @namespace declarations.


The two are contradictory about empty strings. 2.1 is more consistent 
with xml-names:


http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/#nsc-NoPrefixUndecl
> In a namespace declaration for a prefix (i.e., where the NSAttName is
> a PrefixedAttName), the attribute value MUST NOT be empty.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/#defaulting
> The attribute value in a default namespace declaration MAY be empty.
> This has the same effect, within the scope of the declaration, of
> there being no default namespace.


Therefore, I think that 3.1 is wrong about empty strings. I suggest 
moving the first quoted sentence and its example from 2.1 to 3.1 (it’s 
not really about terminology) and changing the other sentence to "All 
non-empty strings are valid namespace names…"

I’m not sure what’s the process for fixing a REC. Adding an errata?

Regards,
-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Friday, 10 August 2012 18:46:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT