W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > September 2010

[Bug 9257] The rules for when an implied namespace binding conflicts should be more precise

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:36:48 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OvWcq-0001pQ-P0@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #9 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>  2010-09-14 14:36:47 ---
This feels nearly right....  But I'm not sure the reader will spot the subtle
difference between "implied namespace binding" in the first sentence, and
"namespace binding" in the second. A QName has an implied namespace binding,
and except in the case of a namespace binding ("", ?), the implied namespace
binding of a QName used as an attribute or element name will become an (actual)
namespace binding of the element, and a conflict between the (actual) namespace
bindings of an element is ALWAYS (not "generally", unless you mean the term
very pedantically) an error. The reason that the unprefixed attribute case
doesn't cause an error is that the implied namespace binding of the attribute
doesn't turn into an actual namespace binding on the element.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 14:36:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:32 UTC