[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Greetings,
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.
Well, an XSLT document with no XSLT-namespace elements isn't really an
XSLT document: ``XSLT processors must use the XML namespaces mechanism
to recognize elements and attributes from this namespace''. Yes, if it
removed non-XSLT-namespace _attributes_ it wouldn't be much use, but
that whole business works because XSLT processors are more-or-less
required to use Simon's best-practice recommendation, and take
unprefixed attributes in XSLT elements to be also in that namespace.
Also yes, this isn't the only way to use namespaces. But I think that
`what document do we get after a namespace transformation' is a pretty
clear way to think about them, where some problems just evaporate.
> 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
I'm with you. I don't find it a major complication, but section 5.2
would most agreeably disappear if default namespaces didn't exist,
which may or may not be desirable....
> > 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.
Badly expressed -- I only meant that the concept `global attribute'
doesn't seem at all valuable, and appears to only confuse things.
All the best,
Norman
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Gray http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/
Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK norman@astro.gla.ac.uk
|
