Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Ogievetsky, Nikita" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 14:47:01 -0400
Andrew Layman wrote:
>What do you mean by this?
Let me try again. Here are my reservations:
xmlns:xsl=<http://www.w3.org/XSL/Transform/1.0> this is an abstract
URI. Works as PI, not a valid URL.
xmlns:xsl =<http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xsl>, the URI points to W3C Working
Draft 21 Apr 1999 which MSXML is not compliant with.
I would suggest that every specification, working draft, etc. specify the
namespace URI that all implementing parsers should understand.
MSXML XSL implementation changed from IE5 beta to IE5, but namespace URI
stayed the same. I think it would have been logical (for the sake of
compatibility) to let me use "beta" syntax in XSL document if I specify
I can build a valid XSL document:
<xlink:stylesheet xmlns:xlink ="http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xsl">
Using different prefix is fine with both XT and MSXML parsers, but confusing
When I read XML document I never look at what stands behind URI. (As I never
open readme files :)
It seams that prefixes like dt, xsl, xlink, rdf, etc should become more
important then just being
temporary proxy. They are already not temporary.
xlink looks as a possible candidate here to enhance current specification.
I found that most of what I wanted to say is expressed much better then I
can do by Liam R. E. Quin:
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)