On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:33:35 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Danny Ayers wrote:
> >To be inserted:
> >{{{
> >Section 2. Atom Documents
> >
> >Atom processors MAY interpret unprefixed attribute names as their
> >namespace-qualified equivalents.
> >If they do, then all Atom attribute names MUST appear in the Atom namespace.
> >
> >}}}
>
> This does not make much sense to me, it is either not possible to write
> a test case for the first requirement in which case this would be an im-
> plementation detail which is out of scope of the specification, or it is
> possible to write such a test case in which case this would render Atom
> inconsistent with a broad range of XML technologies, e.g., for
>
> <atom:foo bar="baz" />
Sorry, swap in the word 'consumer'. Straight XML applications will see
that exactly as written, languages that require disambiguation of
'bar' will read it as 'atom:bar'
A test case would be an RDF processor seeing the triples:
_:fooinstance rdf:type atom:foo .
_:fooinstance atom:bar "baz" .
(assuming atom:foo was a class)
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://dannyayers.com
