On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:23:34 -0700, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > Asir Vedamuthu writes: > >>> I can't immediately detect whether you rule >>> out using the default namespace >> >> Per LC draft, >> >> * In the context of schema component designators, we rely on xmlns() >> XPointer scheme. So, default namespace is ruled out. >> >> * In the context of schema component paths in an XML document, namespace >> prefixes will be bound in the conventional way (using the [in-scope >> namespaces] property of the element information item). >> >> * In the context of schema component paths in other host languages, and >> XML >> applications, they will define their own namespace binding rules. >> >> Given these, my question is - should we still rule out default >> namespace? > > Yes -- out once, out always, or life gets too confusing. > > No -- use the local rules. > > I am stuck . . . > > ht Whatever else is true, we ought to clarify our own examples, and probably shouldn't use no-namespace and default-namespace examples in there except to illustrate a particular point about those cases. //MaryReceived on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 18:05:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:13:36 GMT