- From: Jeff Rafter <lists@jeffrafter.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:12:26 -0700
- To: Bryan Rasmussen <BRS@itst.dk>
- CC: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
I think that (at least according to the NS rec) it is a real URI, but it is explicitly disallowed. What I mean by disallowed I don't know-- I don't remember if it is a conformance requirement or not. errata NE09 http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata#NE09 Cheers, Jeff Rafter Bryan Rasmussen wrote: > Well, it's also problematic because as an empty string it's not a real URI is > it, not even a relative URI. Oh well, it's not my schema, so I probably > shouldn't worry. :) > > Cheers, > Bryan Rasmussen > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com] > Sendt: 3. april 2006 14:35 > Til: Bryan Rasmussen; xmlschema-dev@w3.org > Emne: RE: no targetNamespace, elementFormDefault qualified > > > >>Should there be an >>xmlns:blank="" perhaps to actively qualify the non-namespace qualified >>elements? > > > I've always thought it should be possible to assign a prefix to the > non-namespace, but XML 1.1 instead decided to use the above syntax for a > "namespace undeclaration": it causes the prefix "blank" to go out of scope > entirely, so it can't be used for anything. > > Michael Kay > http://www.saxonica.com/ > > > >
Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 18:13:17 UTC