Re: [syndication] Re: Re: eXtensible Content Syndication (the next step for OCS)

[Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net>]

8/15/01 2:46:31 AM, "Duynstee, Teun" <teun.duynstee@macaw.nl> wrote:

>No, wrong. I have no problem with using namespaces and prefixes, but I think
>that if you use them, you should use them correctly. In your example, you
>use the line:
>
><format mimeType="" contentType="" location=""/>
>
>Here the attributes have no prefix, but are in the namespace
>http://schemas.openprivacy.org/08/10/2001/xcs, which you declared as the
>default in your code. Now suppose that someone else uses another prefix for
>your namespace, say xcs, it would look like:
>
><xcs:format xcs:mimeType="" xcs:contentType="" xcs:location=""/>

No, no, a hundred times no.  Unprefixed attributes are *not* in any namespace.  They are *not* in 
either the default namespace nor in the namespace of the element in whose start tag they appear.  
The *only* way an attribute gets into a namespace is to have a prefix on its name.  Period.  This 
is a very common misunderstanding about namespaces.

>
>To a namespaces conforming parser, these fragments are equivalent. Now for
>some reason, in many cases, developers do this:
>
><xcs:format mimeType="" contentType="" location=""/>
>
>This is not equivalent.

It *is* equivalent to the first example as far as the attributes are concerned.