Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 09 April 2002 16:08
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] [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
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?