Re: Need for a Unified spec? Further XPath & Namespace Divergance

"Clark C. Evans" wrote:

> The language about "absoultizing" relative URI references is
> not the only divergance between the Namespace and XPath
> specification!
> The specifications also diverge on their treatment of the
> infamous "per-element-partition".  The XPath spec's notion
> of "equal" *ignores* the element part of the expanded-name.
> >From my reading of the XPath spec, the expanded name for
> att in <x:a att='val' /> is 'equal' to the expanded name
> for att in <x:b att='val' />.   While, according to the
> namespace spec, they would not be equal, as "a" != "b".

The namespace spec cares about equality only in one very specific context:
satisfying the constraints in Sec. 5.3 on uniqueness of attributes.  And
uniqueness is a consideration only when comparing attributes of a single
element.  So the fact that the namespace spec (more precisely, Appendix A.3
of the namespace spec) considers them unequal has no consequences.

Paul Abrahams

Received on Friday, 19 May 2000 23:20:28 UTC