At Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:43:28 -0700,
Gyani <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Again,
>
> The top level dc element is alright as per xml standards, we can
> call it as the root element of the xml document.
>
> You are right, the sandburg example has followed all DCMI
> recommendations, except the one below.
>
> | Recommendation 2. Implementors should use XML Namespaces [XMLNS] to
> | uniquely identify DC elements, element refinements and encoding
> | schemes.
> Followed. All elements are in the {http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/}
> namespace, which is mapped to the null prefix.
> My interpretation is that you should use the [XMLNS] prefix to identify each
> element.
>
> <?xml version='1.0' ?>
> <dc xmlns="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";>
> <dc:title>Arithmetic / </dc:title>
> .....
>
> This convention is useful when you would have elements from more than one
> schema.
>
> but again this is upto the implementation.
Hi Ganesh,
Thanks for clearing this up, & apologies for the confusion.
In this case, the null prefix is bound to the correct namespace. The
xml namespace spec uses the namespace name (url), not the prefix, for
determining what namespace the elements are in. So it does not matter,
and indeed any implementation that depends on the particular prefix
used (e.g. dc) is buggy (though many are).
See: <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/>
Sorry for all the off-topic discussion, folks.
best,
Erik Hetzner
;; Erik Hetzner, California Digital Library
;; gnupg key id: 1024D/01DB07E3
|