Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I take your point, but this is not without some complications; I fear (alas) that the original "namespace name is just a name" simplicity of the original namespace REC has been lost by Schemas RDDL and other systems assuming a link between the resource identified by the namepace URI and the namespace identified by the namespace name. The Namespace REC makes no such assumption, it just says the name of a namespace is the identifier of a resource, it doesn't say the namespace is (or even is related to) the resource. One of the more common mistakes people make with XSLT (especially with msxsl) is to get a working stylesheet, then "just" add a reference to a (XDR) schema via a namespace declaration on the source document. Then the source document is validated, but the stylesheet no longer works as all the XPath expressions in the stylesheet no longer match. Despite the fact that W3C Schema doesn't enforce this method of specifying the schema and offers the more sane schemaLocation alternative, I fear you are right and that using the namespace URI to refer to a schema will turn out to be common, and we are in for a lot more confusion in this area. A probable outcome will be pressure on XPath to drop its Namespace purist approach that "different namespaces are unrelated" and offer easier syntactic mechanisms to match on elements in "related" namespaces. Eg *:p to match on a p in any namespace. In my view this is a shame, but unavoidable since the "battle" over whether "it is a goal" of the namespace rec to specify a schema appears to be lost (or won, depending on your point of view:-) David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
|
