Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
this retriction does not, in itself, solve the problems which can arise as a consequence of mutations. Leigh Dodds wrote: > > ... > > > i'm curious how that came to pass. > > > > I _think_ it's because of QNames in attribute/element values, but it may > > also have to do with canonicalization discussions. I seem to remember > > it being an issue for the long-ago XML Fragment discussions, but I'm not > > sure. > > If that's the case then why not limit 'in-scope' to mean those namespaces > used by the element, or it's direct element or attribute content? > > Wouldn't that staunch the bleeding? > > Cheers, > > L.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format