[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> writes:
> > At 1:50 PM +0000 2/13/02, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> >
> > >2) "..there's no way for an XML processor to tell whether QNames are
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> EMPHASIS ADDED
> > > used in values." (again, quoting Lenz [2], ellipses in original)
> > >
> > >That's simply false -- any sensible use of QNames would involve a W3C
> > >XML Schema or other type-assigning schema language [...]
> >
> > No, that's simply true. Many of us aren't using schema-aware
> > parsers. Most of us who are still don't have access to the PSVI type
> > information in our applications. Even if we did, most of the documents
> > we get in practice wouldn't have schemas.
>
> The quote I disagreed with didn't say "I can't" or "my favourite
> software doesn't", it said "there's no way". All it takes to disprove
> a universal is to give one counter-example, and I did.
So it's possible to identify *some* places where QNames
are used in attribute values. It's still impossible to
identify *all* such places.
Evan Lenz' original point holds: a general-purpose XML processor
must, as a consequence, retain the complete namespace environment.
This complicates the implementation.
> I'm sorry your parser isn't schema-aware, but it could be,
> and then you'd be better off.
Even this wouldn't help a whole lot. For example, it wouldn't
work for XSLT documents, since XSLT is not described (or possibly
even describable) by a W3C XML Schema.
--Joe English
jenglish@flightlab.com
|
