Michael Kay wrote:
>  
>  > Actually, I think we disagree only on the point of whether
>  > non-qualified names in the absence of a default namespace are
>  > "in" a namespace. We both agree that they can be treated as
>  > being in a null namespace, and both theory and practice
>  > proceed nicely from that point.
>  
>  There is no null namespace. We can say that the namespace of a name is
>  null, meaning that the name is in no namespace; but it is wrong to say
>  that the name is in the null namespace, because there is no such thing.
>  
>  Of course, there is a set of names containing all names that are in no
>  namespace, and since a namespace is essentially a set of names (despite
>  the assertion of the Namespaces REC to the contrary), it would have been
>  easy and elegant to define this set as a namespace; but the spec chose
>  not to do that. Every namespace is a set of names, but not every set of
>  names is a namespace.

There is a set of names which is named "".

  [Definition:] An XML namespace is a collection of names, identified by a URI reference [RF
C2396], ...

The null prefix is bound to this set by default. The null prefix is the only prefix which a 
conforming document can bind to this
namespace. In which ways is this set of names not a namespace?

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>