RE: Error in REC-xml-names-19990114

Thanks.  I second Dan's advice to look at the Myths page.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 12:06 PM
To: Axel Dahmen
Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org
Subject: Re: Error in REC-xml-names-19990114


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/