[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Canonicalized Schemas
At 01:08 PM 3/10/00 -0800, Box, Don wrote: > > This means that the canonicalization would need to take into account the > QName datatype and normalize those values along with the namespace decls. It's a more formal way of putting it, but yes, that's right. Creating a list of prefix to URI mappings could cause problems if the same prefix pointed to multiple URIs at different points in the document or vice-versa. QNames are probably the right place to do this, though I doubt it's much fun. In any case, I'd like to see some kind of formal and preferably official clarification of these issues. c14n and the Infoset seem like the right places to me, but it looks like both consider QNames/prefixes as discarded. (Infoset does provide the namespace declarations needed to reconstruct them, however.) While it might be the right thing to do in terms of the Namespaces in XML recommendation, it's not so good for Schemas and XLink. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
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
|