David Carlisle wrote:
>  
>  [ I dropped dsdl-comment@[...].org as apparently its moderated and I'm
>  not on it]
>  
>  > which claim, as I noted, is bogus.
>  It's not particularly useful but I don't see how you can argue with the
>  spec. If it says that elements are in no namespace unless explictly
>  declared to be in a namespace then presumably that is the case, by
>  definition.

I do not argue with the spec. I note that the recommendation specifies a notion which is unt
enable. In order to implement the
specification one must supplant or contradict its notion in some significant manner. It does
 not matter what these 'sets of
names named ""' are called, but, but for the matter of binding, they behave the same as othe
r sets of names. As such the
distinction made by the specification is fictitious or spurious. That's just the way it is.

I do take issue with claims that this set does not exist.
  
...

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