Re: Response to comment on Namespaces in XML 1.1

> "The scope of a default namespace declaration extends from the beginning of 
> the start-tag in which it appears to the end of the corresponding end-tag, 
> excluding the scope of any inner default namespace declarations. In the 
> case of an empty tag, the scope is the tag itself. "
> 
> Why doesn't that apply to all namespaces, instead of just the default 
> namespace?

The scope rules are the same for all namespace bindings.  Section 6.1
gives the corresponding rules for prefix bindings.

> I think this is
> one of the biggest issues people have a hard time with --  children should 
> default to the scope of
> the parent, if for no other reason than to greatly reduce network traffic 
> and readability.

Do you mean default to the namespace of their parent?  I don't know
what "default to the scope of the parent" could mean.  "Scope" means
the part of the document where the binding is in effect.

If you mean that unprefixed elements should be the in namespace of
their parent - making the default namespace be the namespace of the
parent - then that would certainly have been a way to do it, but is
not the way that was chosen.

> Is there
> any plans for a Namespaces 2.0 to fix this, (IMHO) design flaw?

No.  My personal opinion is that any incompatible change would be
much more confusing than leaving things alone.

-- Richard

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 18:17:09 UTC