[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:23:43AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Amelia A Lewis scripsit:
>> But the whole thing seems to be nearly as weird as the Namespaces 1.1
>> rec, which seems to think that because the only way to have no namespace
>> is to allow undeclaration of the default namespace, then named prefixes
>> also ought to be undeclared. Pure hobgoblin: foolish consistency.
>
>Not foolish, not hobgoblin. It's about not carrying around useless namespace
>declarations when you use XInclude to embed part of a document in another
>document and then reserialize the result as XML.
Sorry, this one whistled right over my head.
Supposing that you do an XInclude of some part of another document. If the
part of the document being included doesn't include the namespace
declarations, then presumably these declarations will have to appear on the
including element. If they do include declarations, then there's no issue
(that I can see). If someone could provide an example of the use case,
perhaps I'd understand.
As things stand for namespaces 1.0, the facility to undeclare the default
namespace is equivalent to binding the (special) unnamed prefix to the
(special) unnamed namespace. That serves a clear and obvious need. It
isn't sensible (in my opinion, and as I understand it, the opinion of the
namespaces WG) to bind a named prefix to the unnamed namespace; it isn't
allowed in 1.1. So undeclaring a named prefix serves some different
purpose. Which I still don't get. The brief mention above makes it sound
like someone has a problem writing a correct serializer.
I seem to be determined to be irritating today.
Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis amyzing@talsever.com alicorn@mindspring.com
The less I seek my source for some definitive, the closer I am to fine.
-- Indigo Girls
|
