xmlgraphics-batik-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cameron McCormack <cam-batik-us...@aka.mcc.id.au>
Subject Re: Dynamic modification of the DOM
Date Thu, 08 Apr 2004 01:46:36 GMT
Archie Cobbs:
> Hmm.. guess I'm confused. So can you explain sections A.2 and A.3 of:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#sets-no-good

(I hadn't read xml-names in detail before.)

> I interpreted them to mean that unqualified attribute names are
> scoped only to the corresponding element tag (i.e., they're "private"
> to the namespace assoicated with that particular element tag).

Yes, it seems that unprefixed attributes that are designated as part of
the "per-element-type partition" have some sort of association with the
element's expanded name, at least for the purpose of determining
attribute identity.  That's not to say that they are in the namespace of
the element on which they appear, though.  They are still in the empty
namespace, as section 5.2 says that namespace defaulting only happens to
elements, not attributes.

Do other W3C recommendations specify which attributes belong to the two
partitions?  I don't see any text in SVG about it.  I guess it's a small
semantic point that doesn't need worrying about most of the time.

> Which would imply (?) that you can add an attribute with no namespace
> prefix and it should do the right thing.

Yeah, I've always thought that setAttribute(x, y) should be equivalent
to setAttributeNS(null, x, y) in namespace-aware DOMs, but it's not
always the case.


Cameron McCormack
|  Web: http://mcc.id.au/
|  ICQ: 26955922

To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-users-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-users-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message