Another errata?

[John Cowan]

Mark Birbeck wrote:

> How not quite? A namespace is a set of unique entries *by definition*.
> That's what they are - a set of unique entries. You can't have a 'set of
> unique entries' that contains a duplicate.

That is not the definition of "namespace" used by REC-xml-names.
Clause 1 specifically denies that XML namespaces are sets.
 
> >  An element can have the same name as a global
> > attribute without problem.
> 
> True. But they are not in the same namespace. According to A.2 the
> element would be in the 'all element types' partition, and the global
> attribute would be in the 'global attribute' partition.

They are in separate partitions of the same namespace.

> Of course, this might not be the source of your contradiction either.

Appendix A says that unprefixed attributes are assigned to one of the
per-element-type partitions of the namespace.  It also says that
unprefixed attributes are assigned to "associated namespaces".
Clause 5.3 is not involved and I shouldn't have dragged it in.

But none of this matters much because Appendix A is not normative.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan at ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

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