Question: Namespace And XSL

[Philippe LAMBERT <Philippe.LAMBERT@gemplus.com>]

A question:

I have a XML with this root element:

	<Bap Version="1.0" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/namespace/">
	...

The namespace is written in the XML by castor's object, during serialization.
When I try to apply to it a XSLT like this:

	<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0" xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
	...
		<xsl:template match="/">
			<xsl:value-of select="Bap/@Version"/>
	...


it didn't work.  The XSL seems unable to access the BAP.  If I remove the namespace declaration from the xml, it works, the version is found.  Please note the URI links to nothing, and the prefix is not explicit.

Could someone explain to me why?  
What can I change in my XSLT to make it work without changing the XML?  
I think I didn't get something about namespace...


Philippe Lambert 
Informaticien, Recherche et Développement
Groupe AC&P
GEMPLUS
*  (514) 732-2388
*   philippe.lambert@gemplus.com <mailto:philippe.lambert@gemplus.com> 



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Benjamin Franz [mailto:snowhare@nihongo.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:13 PM
>To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>Subject: RE: NPR, Godel, Semantic Web
>
>
>On Tue, 8 May 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
>Apologies if what you meant to say was "We cannot _currently_ model a
>human's free will." - a statement with which I agree. The following is
>aimed at what seems a categorical denial of the _possibility_ 
>of modeling
>'free will' (something that occurs frequently in literature 
>that wishes to
>deny the possibility of ever achieving 'true' AI by attempting to
>distinguish via questionale assertions that there is some 
>mystical 'free
>will' that somehow flouts the rules of the universe and has no rules of
>it's own). If that is not what was meant, disregard the rest 
>of my mail.
>;)
>
>> We can only create stereotypical 
>> human models, not model humans.  Why?  We can't 
>> model a human's free will.  Much about human behavior, say 
>> emotions, remains a black box.  Yes, we can 
>> create a axioms for emotional relationships, and even 
>> simulate dynamism through event routing, but really 
>> we are just simulating, or building golems.  
>
>There is no evidence that 'free will' cannot be perfectly 
>modeled. It may
>in fact be nothing more than an illusion caused by the impossibility of
>modeling our *own* behavior perfectly (the machine cannot 
>simulate itself
>perfectly because you fall into the infinite regression of 
>modelling the
>model modelling the model modelling the model.....and hence the machine
>cannot predict its own actions.). A *second* machine may well 
>be able to
>model the first completely (but not itself as well).
>
>The limitation is very probably in our current understanding 
>of the human
>machine (and so our ability to build a precise model of it), not in a
>categorical 'this cannot be modeled' limitation.
>
>A fascinating article just hit the news re the discovery that 
>the sense of
>'self' seems to largely be controlled by a specific portion of 
>the brain.  
><URL:http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/selfident
>ity010508.html>
>
>-- 
>Benjamin Franz
>
>"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
>                                         ---C.A.R. Hoare
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
><http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>"unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@lists.xml.org
>