Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 66460 invoked by uid 500); 13 Mar 2003 19:23:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: general@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 66449 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2003 19:23:34 -0000 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:21:42 -0500 From: "Watts, Tim T" Subject: Namespaces inherited? To: general@xml.apache.org Message-id: <1119D7E259F98D40A252130DDA8F91970299F8@ex2k.bankofamerica.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-topic: Namespaces inherited? Thread-index: AcLplcZI7Kb13SxeQb+0GE40J73X8w== X-ms-has-attach: X-ms-tnef-correlator: X-originalarrivaltime: 13 Mar 2003 19:21:42.0550 (UTC) FILETIME=[C7749360:01C2E995] X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hello, I read that child elements "inherit" the namespace of their parent by default ("Professional Java SOAP", p30, Wrox Press). The W3C spec says that they're in scope for all children. But that's not the same as inheriting. To my understanding, "inheriting" would mean that the children automatically become members of the parent's namespace unless explicitly overridden while "in scope" means that the namespace is merely *available* to the children. According to the book, the following examples are semantically equivalent: I don't think this is correct but I would like to hear from more knowledgable sources. The behavior of the Xerces implementation of DOM does not conform to the above. --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org