Re: Response to comment on Namespaces in XML 1.1

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:17:06 +0100 (BST), Richard Tobin 
<richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> "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.

but, doesn't the quote above explain scoping in the way I was explaining
about inheriting from the parent?

>> 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.

Yes, because that is the way scope works in all programming languages,
the way everyone expects it to work, and the biggest cause of complaint.

>> 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.

I understand.  Unfortunately, it isn't possible for me to make a standard
XML document that uses a more intuitive namespace approach, is it?

Thanks,
Malachi

Received on Sunday, 4 May 2003 16:17:14 UTC