[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: ubiquitous XML?

• From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>
• To: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:32:25 +0000

Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > 4. No namespaces, PIs e t.c. ( they're addressed by 5/6/7 ).
> > > 5. Reasonable Schema.
> > > 6. Reasonable Xpath.
> > > 7. Reasonable XSL.
> >
> > Most interesting - how do you do plan to do xslt without namespaces?
> 
> Easy. For example - XSLScript (www.pault.com) has no need
> in namespaces.
> 
You hard-code the X: prefix, but your syntax appears to disambiguate
XSLScript keywords and source elements in any case, so no problem there.

But it still uses namespaces when translated back into XSLT, so it
doesn't address the general question of what happens when you want to
mix data different schemas in a single document.

Do we have a sugar-syntax for every grammar that includes elements (or
attributes!) from foreign grammars, while keeping the namespaces in play
underneath the sugar?

Francis.
-- 
Francis Norton.

why not?

• References:
  • ubiquitous XML?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: ubiquitous XML?
    • From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>
  • Re: ubiquitous XML?
    • From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>
  • Re: ubiquitous XML?
    • From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>

• Prev by Date: load() method on an asp file??
• Next by Date: Re: ubiquitous XML?
• Previous by thread: Re: ubiquitous XML?
• Next by thread: Re: ubiquitous XML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread