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/Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 17:24:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:24 UTC