An RNG and XML Namespace Puzzle
Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamilton at acm.org
Mon Aug 22 00:06:47 CEST 2011
I have a puzzle concerning the use of Namespace binding on attributes when the RNG schema specifies them.
My assumption is that however the namespace is bound on the element having the attributes (i.e., by a default namespace declaration), the attributes still require explicit prefixes that are bound to the appropriate namespace.
Put another way, I assume that there are no conditions where those attributes can occur without a bound prefix and, in particular, there is no understood use of the unprefixed-attributes as attributes of the element absent any declaration to that effect.
I figure this list will be seen by enough who understand the RNG and XML and XML Namespace rules to find an answer.
The reason I'm asking is the existence of test documents that include variations on this case. In some cases, ODF consumers accept the unprefixed attribute names without ceremony. I can't tell if that is correct because I have observed some of those consumers accepting what are clearly incorrect XML documents. I am not so concerned that some consumers accept unprefixed attribute names. I just want to know if that is within the letter of RNG validity.
The variability in my analysis is evident in the table on this page:
The folder with all of the test documents, the XML files that shows the cases, and a summary description of the set of test cases is at
The file NamSpaceResilience.txt summarizes what they are and what is expected with each one.
More information about the sc34wg1study