[jdom-interest] Namespace issues, et al.

[Malachi de AElfweald]

There is a couple problems with the link you provided.
It is not up-to-date (spec has changed since then), it is XML 1.0
(which I now understand JDOM is, but the W3 spec I sent to you wasn't),
and it was written by Elliotte in the first place (thus agrees with his 
views):

"Copyright 2001, 2002 Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Last Modified August 30, 2001"

I think the reason yourself and Elliotte are not comprehending why there is 
all
the confusion on JDOM handling of Namespaces is actually very simple. Until 
now,
I didn't realize JDOM wasn't up to the current specification. I thought 
JDOM
supported XML 1.1, as is required by many international businesses.

Malachi


On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:12:42 -0600, Bradley S. Huffman 
<hip at a.cs.okstate.edu> wrote:

> Elliotte Rusty Harold writes:
>
>> No, no, no. Both claims are wrong, though the attribute claim is more 
>> wrong than the element claim. I don't know what you're looking at, but 
>> there is no section 6.2. Section 5.2 states, and I quote, "the default 
>> namespace does not apply to attribute names"
>
> I think it's Section 2 "Declaring Namespaces" that's causing the
> misunderstanding. Specifically the two definitions that start out
> with "If the attribute" are being incorrectly applied to  *all*
> attributes, not just *declaration* attributes. I think if they had
> used the word "declaration" instead of "attribute" those definitions
> wouldn't be mis-interrupted and incorrectly applied.
>
> I'd suggest newbies forget the spec.s and first go to your site for the
> well written seminar notes you have on namespaces:
>
> www.cafeconleche.org/slides/xmlone/london2002/namespaces
>
> After that, then go back and read the spec.s. It should make things a
> lot clearer.
>
> Brad
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
> http://lists.denveronline.net/mailman/options/jdom- 
> interest/youraddr at yourhost.com
>
>



--