Another errata?

Tim Bray tbray at
Sat Jan 30 17:16:58 GMT 1999

At 04:50 PM 1/30/99 +0100, james anderson wrote:
>If this is true, then what is the "Per-Element-Type Partition" described at
>great length on the appendix on the "internal structure" of xml namespaces?
>The spec would appear to assert some form of relation between the namespace
>which comprises an unqualified attribute name and the namespace of the element identifier.

Right, that is saying exactly that even though an unprefixed attribute 
is not *in* the namespace of its element, one can easily identify
a conventional package of information that provides an unambiguous
Id of what kind of attribute this is; the package includes the 
information about the type and namespace of the attached element, but 
I repeat: in the sense the spec uses  the word namespace, an unprefixed
attribute is NOT IN ANY NAMESPACE.  That's why the following is legal:

 <!-- is bound to n1 and is the default -->
 <x xmlns:n1="" 
    xmlns="" >
   <good a="1"     b="2" />
   <good a="1"     n1:a="2" />

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