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

Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names

• To: "David Carlisle" <davidc@n...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 19:26:14 -0500
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <200202181422.OAA04464@p...> <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E05573B41@r.... com> <008201c1b82d$a0d2e760$0301a8c0@n...> <1014005493.943.230.camel@l...> <00ab01c1b832$94ce2ce0$0301a8c0@n...> <200202181028.KAA00561@p...> <010301c1b888$7a86c440$0301a8c0@n...> <200202181641.g1IGfGj28557@d...> <200202181659.QAA10641@p...> <01b501c1b8a3$8fb701c0$0301a8c0@n...> <200202181857.SAA12180@p...> <01ec01c1b8c2$a8d852c0$0301a8c0@n...> <200202182157.VAA12765@p...> <020601c1b8ce$b168e560$0301a8c0@n...> <200202182242.WAA12931@p...>

David Carlisle wrote:
>
> depends what you mean by semantics. XSLT allows data to be embedded in
> the stylesheet so long as the element wrapping that data is prefixed and
> bound to a namespace not XSLT. I often use data:,x for that (actually I
> often still use x as well, but don't tell anyone:-) Within the
> stylesheet elements in that namespace contain important data used at
> runtime. So the semantics are rather localised, just to this one
> stylesheet, but they are specified in the XSLT rec which specifies the
> semantics of any non xslt namespace when it us used as a child of the
> xsl:stylesheet element.

I recommend that such elements be qualified with a namespace name that
resolves to a short document:

A simple message "this namespace is used to qualify application private
elements in XSLT stylesheets"
Or better, some documentation as to what the data formats are.


Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Plumbing versus semantics...
• Next by Date: Re: Traditional RPC
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread