[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>However since they are URIs they are simply identifiers and not
>locations so the argument doesn't hold as much water.
>
My complete argument proposed URLs in the case of actually pointing to
usefull documents, or a non fetch-oriented URI scheme in the case a
namespace was only used as a name.
Please explain why doesn't this hold much water.
>>Another thing that bothers me is the rough edges concerning
>>APIs. Most
>>APIs handle namespaces in a really stupid way. Even XPath in XSLT
>>(which, IMHO is by far the best in it's anticipation of namespaces
>>thanks to the according axis) is incapable of dynamically producing
>>namespaces and one must know the default namespace to match
>>the desired
>>nodes..
>>
>>
>
>What do you mean by dynamically producing namespaces?
>
I meant producing a namespace URI-prefix pair for the result document
when that namespace is not declared in either the source or XSLT document.
>Also, if I'm not wrong, if there are no namespace
>
>
>>declarations
>>then XSLT anticipates the empty string as the default
>>namespace (but one
>>may correct me in this one). Surelly this is another rec but if
>>namespaces are not implemented consistently and effisiently in other
>>applications then there must be something wrong with them ;-)
>>
>>
>
>XPath doesn't understand default namespaces and thus I don't think XSLT
>does either.
>
Yes that's what I said? Unless you are supporting my views mentioning
XSLT wants a namespace *and* a local name to match such a node, even if
that node is just on the default document namespace (unless you hack it
with *:localName and yes that is a hack IMHO).
My point was the implementation detail of handling no-namespace with an
empty string (or a URI of length 0 if you preffer).
Manos
|
