Issue anderson-2

please record my objection as a minority opinion.

[in-scope namespaces].a

i reiterate my observation, that where no information item is present in
the in-scope namespaces property to indicate the presence of an xmlns=""
namespace attribute, it is more complicated to describe element/element
and element/attribute combination operations.

descriptions will depend on the significance of the absence of an item
will be presented with the problem of how to describe operations where a
default namespace is either in scope or absent. this assymetry will
complicate the descriptions.

while this gambit may preserve the infoset from having to name the
intangible namespace, this gain is short-lived as subsequent
specifications will need to extend the infoset descriptions to do just
that. (see b)


[in-scope namespaces].b

the wording in the namespace recommendation is flawed. every subsequent
specification which has concerned itself with universal names to date
has - and i suspect every such specification in the future will - extend
the domain of named namespaces to include a designated value for the
"namespace which does not exist and cannot be named". this of necessity,
as such specifications require that "names which are not in any
namespace" be comparable.

the infoset should recognize that and provide a consistent name for this entity.

www-xml-infoset-comments@w3.org wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> Issue anderson-2
> Status: rejected
> Origin: james.anderson@setf.de: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-infoset-comments/2001AprJun/0040.html
> xmlns="" should appear in [in-scope namespaces]
> 
> xmlns="" attributes are reflected in the [namespace attributes]
> property. They do not appear in the [in-scope namespaces] property
> because they do not correspond to a namespace that is in scope, but
> rather one which is no longer in scope.
> 
> The interpretation of xmlns="" as associating the empty prefix with a
> "null namespace" would be contrary to the Namespaces rec, which
> explicitly states that "unprefixed elements in the scope of the
> declaration are not considered to be in any namespace" (section 5.2).
> 
> ....

Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 15:21:33 UTC