Mike Kay wrote:
>  Perhaps we need variant namespace declarations xmlNS="uri" and
>  xmlNS:prefix="uri" that declare namespaces that will only be used
>  in element
>  and attribute names: this would mean these namespaces don't need to be
>  copied if they aren't needed, and it would mean the prefixes can safely be
>  changed when copying.

How interesting! Essentially, do namespaces all over again, only this time
say, "Don't use these to resolve QNames in attribute values. WE MEAN IT!"

Do the legacy applications win and force us to introduce a new low-level
name-resolving mechanism only for attribute and element names (thereby
putting the burden on XML 2.0 parsers)? Or do we break the applications and
fix them in a new version of their respective vocabularies, once and for all
doing away with [in-scope namespaces]?

<troll $NS=""> 
If SGML compatibility isn't a constraint for XML 2.0, perhaps it should use
something other than an attribute-like syntax. And they could be made global
instead of scoped to elements...
</troll> 

Evan


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>