- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:42:30 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> Attributes inherit their namespace from the element they are on. > > No, they do not.... And Werner did not claim they do. Hm... >> So I'd say your third point is not valid. > > Which third point was this, exactly? The one Daniel denoted as 3) in his original message. >> So, all in all, I think you are having a huge misunderstanding of the >> way XML works here. What's worse, there have been like 12 replies of >> which only one (Werner's) made sense to me. > > Almost all the replies, including Werner's, said the same thing.... The > only difference is that Werner pointed out that some parts of attribute > behavior can be modeled with a somewhat erroneous (in that it does not > match what the XML/XHTML/etc specs actually say) but simple model -- > that of saying the attributes are somehow in the namespace of the > element they're attributes of. Hm, well, but I can't find anything in the XML Namespaces document that explicitly says it is in the 'null' namespace (or I must have missed it), and I also don't think it makes sense if that weren't the case. But ok, if you say it's an oversimplification... I hope they will 'fix' this in XML 2.0 to remove the 'but' and null namespace mumbo jumbo (or did they perhaps already do that in 1.1?). > Daniel's original mail concerned cases where that simple model breaks > down and can no longer be used to model the behavior of attributes. Hm, well, I guess you know what you're talking about :). To me they seemed to be discussing things which were evident (that is: obviously <span class="x" xhtml:class="x2"> is illegal because it has 2 attributes with the same name in the same namespace). ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 00:42:34 UTC