[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: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:27:33 -0700
• References: <20020409194616.GA31000@t...> <001801c1dfeb$ee03ce60$6501a8c0@pcukmka> <3CB32B8C.4F8D5BD8@s...> <200204092008.g39K80s01648@d...>

Joe English wrote:

> I'm ambivalent about this.  QNames in content sound like a
> Really Bad Idea on the face of it, but on the other hand
> of all the RECs to come out of the W3C, XSLT is the only
> one in which namespace issues don't cause a tremendous
> headache to end users.  It shifts all the pain onto XSLT
> implementors (thanks, Mike :-).
> 
> I'm not sure how this could be accomplished without QNames
> in content.

The problem isn't QNames in content. It's how you declare
prefix=>namespace mappings. 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.

-- Ron

• References:
  • 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: RE: Naive Question about NS 1.1
• Next by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Previous by thread: RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread