RE: namespace for unqualified attributes

• From: Paul Rabin <prabin@odi.com>
• Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 16:04:53 -0400
• To: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
• Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, xml-names-editor@w3.org
• Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990604160453.00de1100@mailhost.odi.com>

Andrew,

Thanks.  I did note the model described in the appendices, but am concerned
that it is not reflected in the normative text.

Is the intent that unqualified attributes have no namespace URI of their
own, but that for purposed of matching two such attributes (for instance,
in XSLT), the expanded attribute name should be used?

I note that the XSLT draft uses the more familiar <URI, local name> model
of expanded name for purposes of matching, and that this is also the model
in the DOM level 2 draft.

	Paul

Received on Friday, 4 June 1999 16:06:53 UTC