Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check)

>I'm not 100% sure that this is a good idea. My objection is based on
>a separate set of issues:
>  1. Xlink should work for any well-formed XML document.
>  2. XLink is defined on the information set of an XML document.
>  3. Therefore, every well-formed XML document should have an information
set.

Personal opinion, which may not have anything to do with the opinion of the
Infoset group:

We already have documents which are XML-well-formed but not NS-well-formed
(due to NS-mediated attribute clashes). Arguably these do not have valid
infosets when interpreted by a namespace-aware processor.  I'm not
convinced that forbidding relative syntax in the NS declaration is a
signficant step beyond that point.

If you want to process something without testing whether it's
NS-well-formed, treat it as a non-NS document. If you want to ask about
namespaces, you need properly defined namespaces.

>Q: what does the DOM spec return for the namespaceURI attribute?
>A: unspecified;

My current inclination is that the NS declaration attibute returns the
declaration as written. I think we need that info in the Absolutize model,
in order to be able to synthesize the correct prefix when an absolute and a
relative NS declaration are both in scope. And in the Literal or Forbid
models, as-written _is_ the NS's name, so that's OK.


".... drop back 40 yards and punt...."
______________________________________
Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research