[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Norman Gray scripsit:
> The point is that namespaces imply a generic transformation which
> removes everything but the elements and attributes in a particular
> namespace.
That's *one* way to use namespaces, yes. A view of an XSLT document
that removed all but XSLT-namespace elements would be pretty useless;
still less a view that removed only the XSLT-namespace elements.
> The resulting document can then be processed in a generic
> way (I don't need to point out to you that this is an AF-style view).
So it is, and AF's a good thing, but not the only thing.
> That is, namespaces are _simple_, and the problems consist in how you
> specify this generic transformation -- that is, what is and isn't in
> the namespace -- and the current spec complicates this by introducing
> the default namespace, then ducks the problems this causes by the
> evasion in section 5.2.
Bah. The default namespace is a mere syntactic minimization; it allows
us to pick any one prefix and eliminate it from the syntax. At the
Infoset level, prefixes are supplied because of the possible presence
of QNames in character data, but they aren't *meaningful*.
> Also, there's no role here for the `global attribute' nonsense.
Consider XLink: it happens to fit perfectly into your view, using
nothing but global attributes.
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com
At times of peril or dubitation, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Perform swift circular ambulation, http://www.reutershealth.com
With loud and high-pitched ululation.
|
