[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
> -----Original Message----- > From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] > Sent: 09 April 2002 16:08 > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1 > > On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 11:02, james anderson wrote: > > > > the infoset is not itself the problem. the problem begins where one > > expects or specifies that the set of "in-scope" namespaces be available > > as a static value. > > > > 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
|