• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Joe English <jenglish@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 14:09:51 -0800

At 12:41 PM 07/01/01 -0800, Joe English wrote:
>Am I correct in assuming that, in RDF, unqualified attribute
>names are treated as though they had the same namespace name
>as the element to which they belong?
...
>I also notice that other W3C Recommendations seem to use
>different conventions -- XSLT uniformly uses unqualified
>attribute names, and XLINK seems to always use qualified
>ones.

Seems to me it's OK to go either way as long as you make
clear what you're doing.  Basically, specs that rely mostly
on attributes that might get attached to other people's
elements (e.g. xlink) are pretty well forced to prefix, 
otherwise it's just fine not to, but specs do need to be
clear on this point. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Unprefixed attribute names in RDF
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Unprefixed attribute names in RDF
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Resource Gloss (Human Readable)
• Next by Date: RE: Quick edit
• Previous by thread: Unprefixed attribute names in RDF
• Next by thread: Re: Unprefixed attribute names in RDF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread