Re: SAX and xmlns (again)
Robin Berjon <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.sax.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Expway |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > At 2:07 PM -0500 12/19/02, Elena Litani wrote: >> This declaration is false (see [3], [4]) and should not appear on this >> page. Could someone fix it? > > No, it's not false. It's true, and it does not need to be fixed. The > xmlns prefix is not bound to any namespace. This is what the namespaces > spec says. It's what it's always said. > > The DOM group at the W3C violated this principle in DOM. Then they > strong-armed the core working group into retroactively endorsing this > violation in the Infoset and the errata to namespaces. The latter was a > significant violation of advertised W3C practices. I do not accept it as > normative, nor does SAX. I'll rephrase what I said last time this came up. I fully agree that the way in which that change crept in was terrible. I also think that it's a terrible change that seems it was only added in DOM 2 because the WG didn't want to bother defining a proper way to deal with namespaces. However I do not believe that such political decisions should influence SAX. SAX is there to help people get the job done. I don't think it's up to you, me, the SAX project, or whoever to dictate such choices. PerlSAX2 and it's companion XML::NamespaceSupport have an option to switch between both behaviours. Users use it. They get their jobs done more easily. They're happier that way. So can't we forget about what's right and do what's best? -- Robin Berjon <[email protected]> Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ List: sax-devel, [email protected] See: http://www.saxproject.org/ https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sax-devel