W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-names-editor@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Response to comment on Namespaces in XML 1.1

From: Malachi de AElfweald <malachi@tremerechantry.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:05:01 -0700
To: xml-names-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <oprn1i2nugidzkdi@localhost>

Does this solve the confusion on inheriting namespaces? A brief look at the 
JDOM
list will show hundreds of emails/posts arguing about inheritance and 
Namespaces.


The most logical approach, for any developer of any language, is that an 
element
or attribute is, by default, in the namespace of the parent's scope unless 
specified
otherwise.  From what I understand, this is true for elements/nodes, but 
not for
attributes.

For example, the intuitive approach would say:
	<html:html...>
		<a href="..."/>
	</html:html>
that the "a" node is in the 'html' namespace (or the URI pointed to by that 
name), and
that the "href" attribute is an attribute of the "a" node -- and in fact, a 
schema would
enforce this.  From what I understand of all the arguments of the spec, the 
"href" attribute
above is in the "no namespace" you are talking about because it is not 
prefixed with "html:".
This is very counter-intuitive because it is in the scope of the "a" node 
which is in the scope
of the "html:html" node...

Any clarification would be appreciated.

Malachi


On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:08:03 +0100 (BST), <xml-names-editor@w3.org> wrote:

> This is the XML Core Working Group's formal response to your comment
> sent to the Namespaces comment list.  We have treated it as a comment
> on the Namespaces 1.1 draft even though you did not originally send
> it as such.  Your comment is archived at
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2003Feb/0005.html
>
> Please let us know whether you accept our resolution of our comment,
> or wish to have an objection formally recorded.  If we do not hear
> from you within 10 days we will assume that you accept our response.
>
> We have reconsidered the terminology used for names that are in no
> namespace.  To avoid confusion over the word "null", and the incorrect
> inference that there is a "null namespace", we will say that the
> namespace name of a name in no namespace "has no value".  This has
> the additional advantage of bringing Namespaces 1.1 into line with the
> terminology used in the Infoset spec.
>
>
>



-- 
 
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 13:05:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:43 GMT