Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Joern Clausen wrote: > I don't think that is a flaw. I repeat my question, which was not > answered yet: Why are only elements and attributes subject to a > namespace definition, but not entities? There was some discussion during the development of the NS spec, and I think it came down to the point that elements and attributes are structural, while entities are not. To take a simple analogy, in C++ variables, class names, and functions can be namespace-qualified, but preprocessor macros cannot. XML processing instructions were a grey area, since they are sort-of structural. If we could go back in time and I were appointed Infallible Grand Dictator of XML, I would not have allowed entities in the first place (though I might allow named character references of some kind). Realistically, though, some people do like entities quite a bit, so it's unlikely that they would have been dropped even if we had known then what we know now. All the best, David
|
