• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• From: Mukul Gandhi <mukul_gandhi@y...>
• Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 07:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ELGmrije0AY2hN1oJlVCD1d9bH/aniKxYIgWg8/Igj5DJ2q/Rxb5Q10K+Rr4e1IvUXYcPOHFeGbMExFbxzyTnhzVHXfKKLMLr8LQXukBlSCeb0Ye5iFq41s0hT3AHiVHRCdsA4QaKJBZpPg0RPwCHk+CEoFvC2Gs821Hiedhrsw= ;

I am reading Elliotte Rusty Harold's excellent book
"XML in a Nutshell". I have question about XML
Namespaces.

Elliotte mentions in the chapter about XML Namespaces,
that "The URIs partitions the elements and attributes
into disjoint sets".

I don't mean to say this wrong. But is this statement
really correct?

Regards,
Mukul

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
    • From: richard@i... (Richard Tobin)

• Prev by Date: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by Date: Re: RE:Namespaces are flawed
• Previous by thread: Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0 the new XML?
• Next by thread: Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread