• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Namespace entity names Re: UTF-8+names
• From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:59:44 +1000
• In-reply-to: <20031021074525.GG4192@t...>
• References: <3F917A29.1000708@t...> <3f96f447.23635425@s...> <20031020170656.GB3723@m...> <3F94A02F.3090703@a...> <1066716882.9084.128.camel@delleric> <3F94DD75.4070305@a...> <20031021074525.GG4192@t...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030428

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? 
>  
>
>Has this been discussed while
>preparing the Namespaces REC, and was it decided not to go this way for
>any good reason? Pointers to mail archives are welcome.
>  
>
The same question could apply to other names; IDs, enumerations and 
notations.
But the fewer nested definitions the better.

Actually, providing a prefix on entity reference is quite useful; we 
allow typing in
 &isolat1:uuml;  to produce ü for example, so that only the
names just in the particular entity set come up on the selection list.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
http://www.topologi.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • re: Namespace entity names Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>

• References:
  • UTF-8+names
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
  • Re: UTF-8+names
    • From: Joern Clausen <joern@T...>

• Prev by Date: RE: UTF-8+names
• Next by Date: Request for Erratum to XML 1.0 and 1.1 Specs
• Previous by thread: Re: UTF-8+names
• Next by thread: re: Namespace entity names Re: UTF-8+names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread