Lists Home |
Date Index |
this retriction does not, in itself, solve the problems which can arise
as a consequence of mutations.
Leigh Dodds wrote:
> > > 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
> > sure.
> 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?