Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Namespace declaration ISSUE

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

Hi Lofton,

a) I think so.
b) Opt 2. Why? Because...
 - I think we should follow what other standards have done.
 - I don't think the limitation you point out will ever be used.
 - Opt 1 has no way of making sure that xmlns="" points to the WebCGM
 namespace. Example, opt 1 actually makes this a valid file:

 <webcgm xmlns="notawebcgmnamespace">
   <grobject.../>
 </webcgm>

 which is wrong.

Cheers,

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 
Saturday, August 20, 2005, 5:12:59 PM, Lofton wrote:

LH> I would like this on the agenda of the next telecon.  And would 
LH> namespace-knowledgeable people please comment in advance?

LH> [1]
LH> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200508/msg00010.html

LH> Basically, as I explained in [1], I think what we had in the spec preceding
LH> the current CD2 text was broken.  While it required definition of 
LH> application namespaces, it also allowed the WebCGM namespace to be
LH> undefined, which I believe violates "XML Namespaces".

LH> So I tossed in something to make it legal in the CD2 text -- every XCF
LH> instance MUST define the WebCGM namespace (which makes all of our test
LH> cases illegal).

LH> As I explained in [1], this is one of two options I see for a 
LH> solution.  The other would effectively default the WebCGM namespace, but
LH> with a side effect that I describe in [1] (this solution apparently matches
LH> what SVG1.1 does).

LH> So ...

LH> a.) Is my analysis correct in [1]?
LH> b.) Which option do you prefer?

LH> -Lofton.