Namespaces does *not* formally introduce "global attributes"

[David Megginson]

<summary>
 <em>Please</em>, everyone, stop worrying about 
 <socalled>partitions</socalled>!
</summary>

Ronald Bourret writes:

 > 1) Tim Bray's statement that unprefixed attributes do not belong to
 > an XML namespace derives from (b).  Since there is no prefix to
 > associate them with an XML namespace, and we can't the default XML
 > namespace doesn't apply, there is simply no association.

XML attributes have an automatic association with the element on which
they appear, so you have that to fall back on (is that what you were
getting at in the text I snipped out?).

 > 2) As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the normative part of
 > the spec that would lead us to conclude the existence of a global
 > attribute partition that is separate from the per-element-type
 > partitions, as is described in A.2.

The reason that partitions are not mentioned in the normative part of
the spec is that they haven't really been thought out yet -- that's
really part of the schema work.  Think of appendix A.2 as "here are
some of our preliminary speculations to show you what we were talking
about when we designed namespaces".

The Namespaces spec just lets you construct globally-unique names; it
does not tell you anything about how to interpret those names.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)