Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > Bob Foster wrote: >> That was exactly my question. Why are xmlns declarations reported as >> attributes? XSLT has it right. > I guess the reason for this is historical, in that > http://xml.org/sax/features/namespace-prefixes feature has been around > for a while and presumably some people are using it. In general it seems > like a really bad idea, given that SAX reports startPrefixMapping() and > endPrefixMapping(). > > Since the feature is there I agree there should be a standard way of > reporting the default namespace as an attribute to anyone who choses to > process their XML in this way. My vote would be for David's alternative > "b) an attribute with the Namespace URI "http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/" > and no local name;" where "no local name" in the context of this > paragraph should be interpreted as meaning a zero-length String. Where did the "http://www.w3.org/2000/xmlns/" URI come from? The Namespaces In XML spec specifically says: "The prefix xmlns is used only for namespace bindings and is not itself bound to any namespace name." Am I missing some errata, or is there some complexity-multiplying going on here? It sure seems like a SAX feature that should be dropped should not be used to justify contradicting the namespaces recommendation. Bob
|
