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

Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:48:58 -0700
• In-reply-to: <3CB35CC5.B8E6689D@r...>
• References: <3CB35CC5.B8E6689D@r...> <20020409194616.GA31000@t...> <001801c1dfeb$ee03ce60$6501a8c0@pcukmka> <3CB32B8C.4F8D5BD8@s...> <200204092008.g39K80s01648@d...>

Ronald Bourret wrote:
> Joe English wrote:
> > I'm ambivalent about this.  QNames in content sound like a
> > Really Bad Idea on the face of it,  [...]
>
> The problem isn't QNames in content. It's how you declare
> prefix=>namespace mappings.

Right; by "the QNames-in-content problem" I mean "QNames in
element content and/or in attribute values which are interpreted
according to the local namespace environment as defined
by the W3C 'Namespaces in XML 1.0' REC".  Since this problem
comes up a *lot*, a shorthand expression is needed :-)


> One way to do this is to define
> application-specific mapping mechanisms, such as those that allow the
> declarations only on root elements or with specific child elements such
> as:
>
>    <Namespace Prefix="foo" URI="http://www.foo.org/" />
>
> The problem with these is that they inherit the problem that dogged the
> original namespace PI: code that is unaware of the namespace declaration
> mechanism can't safely copy fragments.

The other problem is that it (often) forces document creators to
include multiple namespace declarations for each prefix/URI
mapping.  It doesn't really save much work for document consumers
either, since they would just have to maintain an application-specific
namespace environment as well as the REC-xml-names one.
I want *fewer* namespace-related things to keep track of, not more!


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: amyzing@t... (Amelia A Lewis)
  • RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
  • Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Convonluted Standards
• Next by Date: Transforming a schema with XSL
• Previous by thread: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread