Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Technically this is not a valid URI and therefore not a legal > namespace name. That depends which spec you read. According to the namespaces Rec, any string is a legal namespace name. Yes, they talk throughout of URIs (or in 1.1, IRIs) but the spec doesn't say it's an error if it's not a URI/IRI, and I believe the omission is deliberate. Therefore, non-URIs are legal namespace names. The Namespaces Rec says: "[Definition:] The attribute's value, a URI reference, is the namespace name identifying the namespace." But in its conformance section it doesn't say a document is non-conformant if the value isn't a valid URI reference; nor does the spec contain any definition or reference saying exactly what it means by a "URI reference". The Infoset says: "This specification does not define an information set for documents which use relative URI references in namespace declarations." This reflects a lively controversy over whether or not relative namespace URIs should be resolved against a base URI (the outcome being that no-one could agree, so they decided to deprecate their use), but it doesn't resolve the issue of whether a document that says xmlns="####" is legal/conformant/well-formed or not: let alone xmlns=" ". Basically, the naming and addressing foundations of XML are a disgraceful shambles, and anyone building higher-level specs like XSLT and XQuery on these shaky foundations simply has to improvise. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
|
