- From: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 00:45:51 +0100
- To: www-dom@w3.org
- Message-Id: <C371F10B-502D-11D7-AAE7-000393BB8814@setf.de>
B.1.1: Scope of a binding "An element is said to be within the scope of the binding" this phrasing is poor. to which binding does "the" refer? the reader may be expected to understand it to be "the binding of the element' identifier's prefix to the element's identifier's namespace name", but that concept is ungrounded at this point in the text. the least one needs to do is to turn the sentence around, with which the "the" is more appropriately an "a": "If an element's identifier's prefix is bound to the same namespace URI in the [in-scope namespaces] defined in [ XML Information set ] as the namespace URI of the identifier itself, then the element is said to be within the scope of a binding." which calls attention to the root of the problem: that the concept "within the scope of the binding" is at odds with the definition of "the scope of a binding" as fixed in "namespaces in xml", according to which the inference flows from the other direction. the consequence of the draft's inversion is that the it suggests that, where the apparent binding (after all there _is_ a binding) conflicts with the contingent binding which would be imputed from the incidental element identifier, it is necessary to introduce a new binding. this is not true. one need only change the prefix to reflect the actual apparent bindings. as a change to the attribute appears to be the approach suggested when "polishing" attributes, it is why does the same not apply to the element identifier? ...
Attachments
- text/enriched attachment: stored
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 02:50:38 UTC