Namespace Comments

James Clark jjc at
Tue Aug 4 11:00:50 BST 1998

Don Park wrote:
> I have read the latest namespace spec.  While I am sure that a lot
> considerations and discussions have gone into the spec, I am compelled to
> ask why something like the following was not chosen?

[element based solution deleted]

Because it was felt undesirable that namespace processing should change
the structure of the element tree.

> If attribute-based namespace declaration is the only way to go, why not use
> a simple word like 'namespace' instead of 'xmlns' so that its purpose is
> clear to the reader?

Only names beginning with "xml" (any case) are reserved by the XML spec.

> If 'namespace' is too common, people can qualify it with 'xml' like this
> 'xml:namespace'?

Using 'xml:namespace' would mean that a namespace 'foo' was declared


which looks very strange to me.


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as:
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list