[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
>I can't really get my head around my >question-- but it is something like this: if there is a simple software >solution to make namespaces work-- even for parsers that weren't originally >designed to support them they can't be that broken. I agree. Carrying in-scope namespace information around doesn't have to involve anything more than keeping some objects isomorphic to namespace attributes. If the document is not something that's actually been parsed - the output of an XSLT module perhaps - then some of those objects won't directly correspond to namespace attributes, but they won't be any more complicated. In particular - in case this isn't obvious - there is certainly no need to build a set of namespace bindings for all the namespaces in scope on every element. (XPath 1.0 has some extra complication for implementors because namespace nodes have parents, and I think that is now recognised as a mistake.) > It feels like there are >two (maybe three) notions of what the problem is: >1) QNames in content (but again a layer could add support for this >downstream?) Certainly there would be no need to carry around any namespace map if prefixes were only used on element and attribute names. >2) Joe English's sanity breakdown (which is actually genius...) I'm too lazy to go into this in detail, but there are reasonable uses for some of the "insanities" he describes, such as combining two documents that happen to use the same prefix. >3) The need to undeclare in scope namespaces (linked to 1?) I don't think this adds any significant complexity to namespace processing. If it had been present in the original spec no-one would have thought twice - it's a natural feature that was omitted (I think Tim Bray - one of the original authors - has described its omission as "a bug"). Rectifying this omission by issuing an erratum to Namespaces 1.0 would have led to interoperability problems far out of proportion to the advantages. It needed a change to the XML version number to do it cleanly, and I don't think anyone thought it was worth a version number change just for that. But when the XML 1.1 work started, several people noted that if there was going to be a new version number anyway, there was a handy opportunity to add prefix undeclaring. -- Richard
|
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
|