RE: your comments on 4.6.1 Namespaces and Attributes

["Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>]

> From: owner-ietf-xml-use@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-xml-use@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David Waite
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 7:47 PM
> To: ietf-xml-use
> Subject: Re: your comments on 4.6.1 Namespaces and Attributes
>
>
>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> >I still have problems with this section (which is now at 4.7.1):
> >
> ><quote>
> >4.7.1 Namespaces and Attributes
> >
> >   There is a frequently misunderstood aspect of the relationship
> >   between unprefixed attributes and the default XML namespace - the
> >   natural assumption is that an unprefixed attribute is qualified by
> >   the default namespace, but this is not true.  Rather, the unprefixed
> >   attribute belongs to a set of attributes that are defined
> >   specifically for the element to which it is applied.  Thus, in the
> >   following:
> >
> >      <ns1:fox a="xxx" n:b="qqq"/>
> >      <ns1:bay a="yyy" n:b="rrr"/>
> >      <ns2:baz a="zzz" n:b="sss"/>
> >
> >   The meaning of attribute "a" is defined separately for each
> >   attribute.  By comparison, the prefixed attribute "n:b" is defined
> >   independently of the element to which it is applied.
> ></quote>
> >
> >1) It's true that unprefixed attributes inherit a default namespace. They
> >are technically in no namespace.
> >
> >2) It's new to me that being prefixed or not carries *any* hint about
> >whether the attribute is "defined" (BTW: what is meant by
> 'defined' in this
> >context) specifically for an element or not. Can you cite the XML
> >recommendation or XML Infoset to back this up? Otherwise the
> text needs at
> >least to be clarified.
> >
> >
> Its not so much the 'definition' of the attribute, but more on the
> 'context' of the attribute. Non-prefixed attributes are dependant on and
> live within the context of the element, while prefixed attributes are

Says who?

Evidence please.

If this is an attempt on doing *recommendations*, it should be labelled that
way.