W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > July 1999

RDF attributes & non-prefixed attributes

From: Olivier Marce <Olivier.Marce@ms.alcatel.fr>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:28:13 +0200
Message-ID: <379DD00D.F02AB875@ms.alcatel.fr>
To: xml-names-editor@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, rdf-dev@mailbase.ac.uk

As it has been several times mentionned before, there is still an ambiguity in
the NameSpace handling for non-prefixed attributes.
The question can be resumed by the following:
Are <foo:bar id=""> and <foo:bar foo:id=""> equivalent, given any namespace
"foo" ?

My understanding is they are not.

If they are, the RDF M&S spec is consistent on this point, and one can use
indistinguishly 
either <rdf:Description ID=""> or <rdf:Description rdf:ID="">, and the same for
rdfs:Class.
If they are not, a choice must be clearly expressed in RDF M&S errata, stating
which
of namespace mus be considered,
either http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns, or the namepsace specific
to the element (which is different of the namespace of the element, see below).

My first understanding of the XML NameSpace spec (seems to me the most natural
one)
was to consider that a non-prefixed attribute belongs to the same namespace than
the element one.
I understood that different people understood the same.

However, the annex A.3, and more precisely recent discussion in xml-names-editor
mailing list
state the opposite.

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/1999Jun/0001.html :
> From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
> Subject: Re: namespace for unqualified attributes
> 
> At 02:51 PM 6/4/99 -0400, Paul Rabin wrote:
> 
> >a) they belong to no namespace (or to an unnamed namespace associated with
> >the document), or
> >b) they belong to the same namespace as the element in whose start tag they
> >occur, or
> >c) it is unspecified which of a) or b) is the case.
> 
> a) is correct, except that there are no unnamed namespaces.  Why
> is this true?  Because, as you note:
> 

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/1999Jun/0002.html :
> From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
> Subject: RE: namespace for unqualified attributes
> 
> All of those alternatives listed are incorrect.  It would be more accurate
> to say something like: Unqualified attributes belong to a small namespace
> associated with the containing element type.  However, the exactly ideal
> wording has never been worked out.  I recommend you look closely at the
> examples in th excellent Appendix 3 written by Tim Bray.  It should make the
> intention more clear.

And in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/1999Jun/0004.html :
> From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
> Subject: RE: namespace for unqualified attributes
> 
> Unqualified attributes are intended to act exactly as they do in XML 1.0
> without namespaces.  They are specific to their element type.  Two
> attributes with the same name on different element types are distinct
> attributes.  Attribute names are not in any global namespace, most certainly
> they are not immediately in the same namespace as contains their element.  
> 

Although the answer from editors are a little bit different, we can conclude
that 
<rdf:Description ID=""> is different than <rdf:Description rdf:ID="">,
then RDF spec is inconsistent on this point.

Whatever if I am on the right way or not,
I think it would be useful for all to have acknowledgement from
Namespace editors and RDF editors.

Regards
-- 
Olivier Marce (UAA/GSA)
Alcatel CRC				Tel: +33 (0) 1 69 63 41 67
Route de Nozay			  	Fax: +33 (0) 1 69 63 17 89
F-91461 Marcoussis Cedex (France)
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 1999 11:32:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:42 GMT