Re: Last Call Comments on Namespaces in XML 1.1

This is a formal response from the XML Core WG to your comments on the
Namespaces in XML 1.1 last call working draft.

If we haven't heard from you by the end of Monday December 9th, we
will assume for the purposes of our planned CR request that you have
no objection to our resolution.

Commenter email address: ian@hixie.ch

> Subject: Last Call Comments on Namespaces in XML 1.1
> 
> I have only two comments:
> 
> 1. How do I declare a global attribute that is not in any namespace?
> 
> i.e. the Namespaces in XML 1.0 document
> 
>    <foo xmlns:bar="" bar:baz="quux"/>
> 
> ...would mean you had a "foo" element in the "" namespace with a "baz"
> attribute in the "" namespace with the value "quux". This is as opposed
> to the following:
> 
>    <foo baz="quux"/>
> 
> ...which of course is a "foo" element in the "" namespace with a "baz"
> attribute whose namespace _is_ the "foo" element.
> 
> It appears that the new draft makes it impossible to define global
> attributes that are not in any namespace. (In the new draft, the first
> example above is invalid.)

Summary: misunderstanding

The syntax you describe:

  <foo xmlns:bar="" bar:baz="quux"/>

was not legal in Namespaces 1.0.  There is no "" namespace; the only
allowed use of the empty string as the value of a namespace-declaring
attribute was to undeclare the default namespace, which only applies to
elements, not attributes.  Assuming you mean 'no namespace' by the
'the "" namespace', there was (and is) no way to put a prefixed
attribute in it.

> 2. What will the CR exit criteria be, and when will your CR exit
> criteria test suite be available? I urge you to consider using the
> same criteria as the CSS working group used for the Media Queries
> module [1], which is based on the criteria we used for the Selectors
> specification [2] and the Mobile Profile [3]. This will help ensure
> interoperability.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/#status
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Selectors/current/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile#status

Summary: accepted

We intend to produce a small test suite by the end of the CR period,
and will require that two implementations pass it in full.  The
namespaces spec is not broken down into features, so we see no reason
to consider partial conformance.

> Other than that, this seems like a well written specification. Great
> work!  I look forward to reading your answers to these comments in
> your last call disposition of comments.

Thank you.

-- Richard Tobin, Namespaces 1.1 editor

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 13:31:38 UTC