David Carlisle wrote:
>  
>  >  In which ways is this set of names not a namespace?
>  
>  It could have been defined as being a namespace but the namespace REC (in 5.2) says
>  
>  If the URI reference in a default namespace declaration is empty, then
>  unprefixed elements in the scope of the declaration are not considered
>  to be in any namespace.
>  
>  which explictly says that that set is _not_ a namespace, so presumably
>  it isn't.
>  

It says that "[they] are not considered to be in any namespace," which claim, as I noted, is
 bogus. That is, it is "spurious,
fictitions, and a sham", and is inconsistent with the earlier definition. 

So what does one call this 'set of names which has the name "", but which one can for histor
ical reasons not call 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>