David Brownell wrote: > > James Clark wrote: > > > > David Brownell wrote: > > > > > > The namespace spec states that there are two "implicitly declared" > > > namespace prefixes, "xml" and "xmlns". But it doesn't give their > > > associated URIs, as needed for uniformity within implementations. > > > > I don't see a need for a URI for "xmlns". Names with the "xmlns" > > prefix are never seen by applications. > > That's not in the current spec. How will applications know where the > namespaces are declared, if not through this (IMHO) natural model? > Or you assuming that preserving the declaration structure of source > data is not a goal? You were thinking that you would expose the declaration structure by passing through the expanded xmlns attributes? I hadn't thought of doing it like that. There are other ways to do it (see XT for one example). > I note that the XSL draft includes a requirement that applications be > able to see the list of namespace prefixes that are "in scope". (2.4.2) > Looks like some API-like requirements are bubbling up; I don't think they > would naturally belong in this document. I think some kinds of application will need this (though they'll probably be in a minority). > > We know we need a URI for "xml". > > Good ... > > > The intention on "xmlns" is that's it's a keyword. > > That might simplify some things. Like supporting default namespace > declarations. > > But -- just "xmlns", and not "xml"? So it'd be allowable to say > "xmlns:xml='http://www.example.com'" and thus change the meaning > of an "xml:space" or "xml:lang" attribute? I don't think I would want to allow that. It's not obvious exactly what to do here, so I think it's best to keep it simple (restrictive) for now, and maybe generalize later if the simple approach turns out to be problematic. JamesReceived on Wednesday, 26 August 1998 00:12:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:38 UTC