- From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:37:58 -0400
- To: James Clark <jjc@JCLARK.COM>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, xml-uri@w3.org
James Clark wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > While mulling over the recent proposal[2], I realized > > that the namespaces spec (ironically) doesn't currently > > specify any interactions between multiple documents, and as long > > as that remains its scope, I think the proposed wording > > is adequate. > > I don't think so. You can get the two bats problem even within a single > document because of external entities. Consider a document > http://www.example.com/catalog/catalog.xml > > <!DOCTYPE catalog [ > <!ENTITY bats "animals/bats.xml"> > ]> > <cat:catalog xmlns:cat="../2000/vocab#"> > &bats; > </cat:catalog> > > where http://www.example.com/catalog/animals/bats.xml > > <cat:item > xmlns:animal="../2000/vocab#" > animal:type="bat" > cat:type="available-for-special-order"/> > > A namespace processor has to decide whether this violates the XML > constraint on attribute uniqueness or not. On the literal > interpretation it does because animal:type and cat:type have the same > local part and prefixes that have been bound to identical namespace > names (although the namespace names refer to different URIs). > > I don't believe the Microsoft proposal has taken this sort of case into > consideration. I also posted a very similar example, which provides confirming evidence of what you're saying. Paul Abrahams
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2000 10:38:50 UTC