David Carlisle wrote:
>  
>  >  I note that the recommendation specifies a notion which is untenable.
>  > ...
>  > I do take issue with claims that this set does not exist.
>  
>  I suspect that the reason for not calling it a namespace is that you are
>  supposed to think of it as multiple sets which are not distinguished in
>  the syntax.

This conflates the behaviour of sets of names with that of the mechanisms which bind names t
o other things, like element and
attribute declarations.

>  
>  That is, if you have two documents that contain the element
>  {http://www.w3.org/1998/math/MathML}math then they are references to the
>  same element in the same set (the mathml namespace)
>  
>  However if you have two documents referencing {}math then arguably they
>  are not intended to be the same element, It may be that they are in
>  different sets of elements but that the XML namespace syntax does not
>  distinguish that (maybe the application does using other info, eg the doctype).
>  

...

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