[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Richard Tobin wrote:
> >2) Joe English's sanity breakdown (which is actually genius...)
>
> I'm too lazy to go into this in detail, but there are reasonable uses
> for some of the "insanities" he describes, such as combining two
> documents that happen to use the same prefix.
In this case, I'd recommend remappping the prefixes in the
secondary document to match the namespace environment of
the primary document. (If neither is "primary" or "secondary",
just pick one arbitrarily.)
Of course this strategy won't work if there are QNames-in-content;
the only way to maintain sanity in this scenario is to use XInclude
(or an application-specific moral equivalent, e.g. <xsl:import>).
> >3) The need to undeclare in scope namespaces (linked to 1?)
>
> I don't think this adds any significant complexity to namespace
> processing. If it had been present in the original spec no-one would
> have thought twice - it's a natural feature that was omitted (I think
> Tim Bray - one of the original authors - has described its omission as
> "a bug").
I tend to agree; 'xmlns:foo=""' is not a bad idea. I just
think the motivation for adding it in a new revision of REC-xml-names
is wrong. "Undeclaring" an unused namespace prefix should have
no effect whatsoever on the interpretation of the document;
applications which require this facility are just as bad
as those which depend on the order of attribute value specifications
in start-tags.
--Joe English
jenglish@flightlab.com
|
