Re: XML Syntax: Attributes

> This sounds like a good idea to me.

Me too.

BTW I raised issue-109 on a w3c staff list yesterday and it's turned
into a huge discussion.  Not a simple topic.  :-(    Hopefully we'll end
up with some useful information to share.

    - Sandro

> peter
> 
> 
> 
> From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
> Subject: XML Syntax: Attributes
> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:36:16 +0100
> 
> > 
> > I propose that we put the attributes into "no namespace" rather than
> > into whatever namespace we pick.
> > 
> > Rationale: Unprefixed attributes do not inherit the default
> > namespace. This is a deliberate design decision of XML namespaces. The
> > idea is that bare attribute names which are *only* used in a specific
> > vocabulary are sufficiently disambiguated by their parent
> > element. Attributes that are intended to *cross* vocabularies (such as
> > xml:lang or xlink attributes) *are* encouraged to be put into a
> > namespace (for obvious reasons).
> > 
> > The advantage of keeping the attributes namespaceless is that, with a
> > default namespace declaration, OWL/XML will not need *any* prefixes for
> > elements and attributes. Frankly, this is a huge authoring and reading
> > win. It also means one can *just* use QNames for uri abbreviation
> > (assuming we allow QNames in attribute content...subject of a future
> > post!).
> > 
> > My understanding is that no namespace attributes are the preferred
> > design in this case anyway. We don't intend for these attributes to be
> > used anywhere but in our vocabulary and it's pretty clear that no one
> > would want them :)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Bijan.
> > 
> >

Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 13:30:27 UTC