RE: Request to name the "no namespace" namespace

I'm not sure the comment about Eric is useful, but
otherwise this sounds like a fine message.

paul 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Wednesday, 2008 April 23 11:03
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Request to name the "no namespace" namespace
> 
> 
> (Draft reply; please comment)
> 
> > This is a request from a somewhat exasperated CSS 
> Namespaces [1] editor.
> > Can you please assign the "no namespace" namespace a name? 
> It's very hard
> > to talk about it and make conformance requirements that 
> involve it when
> > it doesn't have a name.
> 
> The XML Core WG discussed the matter, and our feeling is that we can't
> give this namespace a name, because it does not exist: when elements
> are not in a namespace, it is not because they are in a "no namespace"
> namespace, or a nameless namespace, but because there does not exist
> any namespace which in fact contains them.
> 
> This means that one must sometimes write annoying 
> parenthetical remarks
> like "The output element is in the same namespace as the input element
> (or, if the input element is not in a namespace, the output element is
> not either)."  This is just one of those things that makes writing a
> spec challenging and fun.  Alternatively one can proclaim at 
> the top of
> the spec once and for all that elements in no namespace are treated as
> if they were in a namespace called Eric, or perhaps "eric:///".  :-)
> 
> More broadly, for us to write a new spec proclaiming that the elements
> formerly described as being in no namespace are now actually in a
> namespace after all would be productive of nothing but headaches and
> confusion.  We got in enough trouble, as you may recall, for 
> retroactively
> proclaiming a namespace name for the "xmlns" namespace.
> 
> > (Bonus points for explicitly associating it with the empty string --
> > explaining how the empty string represents it while keeping 
> it distinct
> > from the idea of an empty string namespace name is also difficult.)
> 
> Unfortunately, that is highly API-dependent.  Some APIs use the empty
> string as a representation of the nonexistent namespace of an 
> element, but
> others use the C or Java null instead, and both positions are 
> legitimate.
> 
> Additionally, "" is not a legitimate namespace name, because 
> a namespace name
> is a URI, and "" is not a valid URI according to the grammar 
> in RFC 3986.
> It is a legitimate value for an "xmlns" attribute, but that's 
> another thing.
> 
> We hope these explanations are helpful, if not as helpful as 
> you had hoped.
> 
> -- 
> John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan@ccil.org
> SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class 
> that should
> be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
> buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
> in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
> witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 16:19:44 UTC