- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:05:53 -0600
- To: Axel Dahmen <a.dahmen@infozoom.de>
- CC: xml-names-editor@w3.org
Axel Dahmen wrote:
>
> Dear editors,
>
> I'm not sure if I've learned from the recommendation correctly
I think you have not... you're not alone; see
Myth #4: Unprefixed attribute names are in XML
namespaces
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2000/03/08/namespaces/index.html?page=2
in
Mar. 8, 2000: Namespace Myths Exploded by Ronald Bourret
> but if I did,
> then the 2nd example in paragraph 5.3 is *not* legal:
>
> <QUOTE>
> However, each of the following is legal, the second because the default
> namespace does not apply to attribute names:
>
> <!-- http://www.w3.org is bound to n1 and is the default -->
> <x xmlns:n1="http://www.w3.org"
> xmlns="http://www.w3.org" >
> <good a="1" b="2" />
> <good a="1" n1:a="2" />
> </x>
> </QUOTE>
>
> As <good> expands to <http://www.w3.org:good>,
yes, but...
> its unqualified attribute (a)
> inherits the element's namespace
nope.
> and expands to http://www.w3.org:a. Since
> "n1:" also expands to "http://www.w3.org", the attribute (n1:a) also expands
> to http://www.w3.org:a which makes both attributes identical and thus the
> tag illegal.
>
> Best regards,
> Axel Dahmen
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 15:06:29 UTC