Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
MURATA Makoto wrote: > Since the same prefix can be bound to > different namespaces, it is no longer possible to construct an equivalent > XML 1.0 DTD from a collection of namespace-schema pairs. Then, what is > the point of using prefixes? In my understanding, one reason that we > chose colonization rather than reserved attributes is validation by XML 1.0 > parsers. This reason no longer exists. (Note: The other reason was > qualification of attributes.) More precisely, it's still possible to construct DTDs for validation, but the DTD has to have the prefixes hard-coded into it, and the same prefix cannot be used for two different namespaces unless there are no overlapping element names (which cannot be guaranteed). > One could argue that these two should always > be in sync, but then what is the point of having the two? It would have > been a lot simpler if we had introduced a reserved attribute for specifying > the namespace of the element. Absolutely. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@c... You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5) xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
