[closed] Re: XLink 1.1: default xmlns attribute values

/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
| * Norman Walsh wrote:
|>|   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/ section 4.3 suggests
|>| to use default attribute values for xmlns:xlink, this is obviously an
|>| incorrect and dangerous suggestion, please remove suggestions to use
|>| default attribute values from this section or, preferably, remove the
|>| entire section since documents that make use of these suggestions are
|>| by definition not interoperable.
|>
|>The Core WG has considered this comment. We'll add a note to indicate
|>that providing such defaults in an external subset may mean that they
|>are not seen by browsers and other parsers that do not read the
|>external subset.
|
| How would this look like exactly? 

It looks like this:

  Note also that using the attribute value default technique to
  specify the XLink namespace declaration has no equivalent in [RELAX
  NG], [XML Schema Part 1: Structures], or other modern schema
  languages. While it can be used when DTD-informed parsing is
  performed, it poses an interoperability risk and should be used with
  care.

| It seems you will keep the section and
| the suggestion to use such defaulting but note that maybe that's a bad
| suggestion; wouldn't it be better to simply point out that this is a bad
| idea and is recommended against?

There are still users who rely on DTD validation and in such
environments, the technique is not without its value.

|>We will also add a note to indicate that the technique does not have
|>any analog in XSD, RELAX NG, or other modern infoset-based validation
|>languages.
|
| This is fine by me.

Thank you.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 14:45:40 UTC