- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:51:59 -0400
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: <w3c-xml-plenary@w3.org>, "XML Signature (W3C/IETF)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
On Monday 09 September 2002 05:45 pm, Paul Grosso wrote: > Namespaces 1.1 is expected to be used with XML 1.1. This is was I expect, but to be clear, if possible, is there also an expectation that it would *not* be used with XML 1.0? I think not given what is said in the status, "Since documents using this new feature will not work with existing processors, this revision is being tied to the 1.1 revision of XML itself. XML 1.0 documents must continue to use version 1.0 of this specification." > Other than various > errata, Namespaces 1.1 really only adds the ability to "undeclare" a > namespace, and I doubt it would require any change to XPath et al. On the trivial side, at the least, the references would need to be updated... XPath references (unfortunately) the latest version of the existing specification (instead of a dated instance...): http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#XMLNAMES --> http:// www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names Fortunately, the 1.1. version is using a new short name: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/ But on the substantive issue let's have a look at NS1.1, XPath, and NS1.0... http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xml-names11-20020905/#scoping The attribute value in a namespace declaration for a prefix may be empty. This has the effect, within the scope of the declaration, of removing any association of the prefix with a namespace name. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116#namespace-nodes NOTE: An attribute xmlns="" "undeclares" the default namespace (see [XML Names]). http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#defaulting The default namespace can be set to the empty string. This has the same effect, within the scope of the declaration, of there being no default namespace. So what exactly *is* the difference. And if there is a difference between NS 1.0 and 1.1, did XPath 1.0 anticipate the change and already correct for it in its data model?
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 17:52:04 UTC