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 -- Cameron McCormack | Web: http://mcc.id.au/ | ICQ: 26955922 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
