Attributes with Intent (and namespaces)

MURATA Makoto murata at
Fri Jul 3 05:39:10 BST 1998

james anderson wrote:
> text the uri is correct.
> if one wishes to resolve a name in the dynamic context of a document or of an
> element, the prefix, in addition to the uri, would be correct.
> although this (the prefix qualification), in any case, is not something an
> application should have to do (therefore the concern for an opaque object,
> which question still stands), it is something which a specification which is
> part of an encoded document would need to express. within the document itself
> it would be wrong ( i won't say 'dead wrong', but it would be more cumbersome)
> to specify relations among symbols and or namespace regions according to uri,
> particularly given that there are already prefix bindings in effect in that
> dynamic context. which is where the prefixes come in.
> in global context, one shouldn't be worrying about qualification any more, the
> tokens which the parser generates whould be globally unique. (the opaque
> objects again...)

I strongly disagree.  The whole point of the namespace extension is to 
allow applications to tell which namespace a name belongs to.  A qualified 
name is not an opaque object.  Application programs should and will care 
the attached URI.  On the other hand, prefixes should (ideally) be completely 
hidden from applications.

Fuji Xerox Information Systems
Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata at

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