- From: John.Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:51:40 -0500
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, public-xml-core-wg@w3.org, misha.wolf@reuters.com
Henry S. Thompson scripsit: > > We discussed this, but most members felt that there was > > nothing to do--what these folks are doing isn't XML (at > > least not XML plus Namespaces). > > > > Norm argues that we should object to the use of the > > QName syntax for things that aren't QNames. He also > > objects to the invention of a new mechanism for declaring > > things that look like namespaces when they aren't really. Something may have got lost in translation here. The examples I saw (from Misha) were solely about a substitute for the use of QNames *in content*, which is a very different thing from QNames as element or attribute names. The Namespace Rec is, fortunately, silent about QNames in content, though the Infoset gives the practice implicit recognition by exposing the prefix as a property of a namespace info item. In any case, it can't possibly be bad XML to use attribute values that look like "foo:bar", even when "foo" is not a currently declared namespace prefix. The actual example looked like this: <root> <ns prefix="foo" uri="http://www.example.com/foo"/> <ns prefix="foo2" uri="http://www.example.com/foo2"/> ... <something property="foo:bar" /> ... </root> Misha, can you confirm that I'm on the right track here? -- One art / There is John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 13:52:14 UTC