• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 01:02:31 -0700

Peter Piatko wrote:
> What was the problem with the simpler interpretation that unqualified
> attributes were in the same namespace as their containing element?  Then
> there would be no need for Per-Element-Type partitions at all (and hence the
> confusion of unqualified local elements).

Without the per-element-type partitions, you can have one name referring
to two different attributes, possible with different types, such as the
foo attribute on elements bar and baz. This is certainly possible, but
seems to negate the whole point of having namespaces (unless I'm missing
something).

-- Ron

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Peter Piatko <piatko@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Peter Piatko <piatko@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Next by Date: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Next by thread: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread