Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Kay wrote:
> > isn't any application better off processing the specialized values in
> > the parser's dynamic context than trying to resolve the conflicts
> > inherent in dragging that context around indefinitely? from the
> > descriptions which i have seen, the status of such values is known at
> > the point where they are parsed. are there cases where that
> > is not true?
> yes, if the value has been blindly copied by an application that didn't know
> that the value had a dependency on the context. That's exactly what the
> whole XSLT-namespace problem is about.
yes, but what value has been "blindly copied". where those attributes
values or element content which are declared to be in the QName domain
are processed in the parser's context, there are no lexical values -
which could exhibit a dependancy - to copy. where the application
introduces values it must introduce values in the correct domain.
it's as though one were to expect binary code to carry around the base
at which the aritmethic constants were read when the program was
compiled for the full life cycle of the program. or worse yet, the name
of the compiler setting to which the read base was bound together with
the setting at the point in time when the program was read.