Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
>I'm arguing that _unprefixed_ attributes should be >treated as if they had the same namespace as the element containing >them. I think I agree with Simon on this, though naturally in more moderate terms. As I understand it, an argument for treating them differently is that a prefixed attribute's meaning should be defined *only* by its namespace - so it's a kind of global attribute - whereas an unprefixed attribute can mean different things on different elements from the same namespace. Attributes like xml:lang and, say, name fit this pattern well. But in cases like rdf:about it breaks down so badly that I think it would have been better to say that foo:attr and attr on foo:elem are the same. I'm sure we'll have widespread support if we make it an amendment to Namespaces 1.0. Yes, I'm joking of course. I really think it's too late to change it, and the most reasonable workaround is to always use the prefixed form when it exists. -- Richard
|
