Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> 2. XML or xml is reserved. I don't think xmlns is defined as a > > namespace declaration anywhere but it seems sort of implied. > > Any casing of "xml" being reserved isn't necessarily namespaces > related, it also allows the introduction of future features with > specific semantics (as happened with the belated xml:id). > Yes I know, however if you have XML like this: <a xmlns="http://example.org/namespacesexample"/> what is that xmlns? In the XML spec as currently written I don't think that is understood to be clearly a namespace [maybe it is somewhere in there, I can just remember the : is specified but no other reference is made as to the meaning of namespaces]? But because starting with xml is reserved that implies that xmlns has a W3C determined meaning. W3C has published another document that describes what the meaning of xmlns is, the namespace spec. So I would say that in the case of 'xmlns without :' then it may not be that the XML spec knows about the existence of namespaces in that case but it would have to know that there must be a specification that handled that special case or it would have to assume that the above example was not well-formed. Actually I am finding it awkward at this point to talk about what the XML spec knows since being a spec it obviously knows nothing. This is more the case of what an XML parser must know at a minimum, and it must know - even without 'understanding' namespaces that xmlns is allowed, and because it MUST know that little bit I suppose it becomes reasonable for it to know just as well what xmlns 'means'. Cheers, Bryan Rasmussen
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
