[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If this requirement had been foreseen, I am sure the rec would have
included expanded names {iri}:localName, thereby *forcing* implementors
that want to be conformant with the spec to add a preprocessing run that
expands all prefixes.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but essentially you are saying, if XML
Namespaces had been defined differently, things would be different.
I doubt _anyone_ would disgree with that:-)
Whether or not it's acceptable now, 6 years on, to define core XML
transformation/Query technologies that only support an "easier" subset
of XML Namespace conformant documents is essentially a marketing issue not
a technical one, so not something that I'm prepared to comment on (I may
have an opinion, but I'd just be guessing based on zero knowledge).
> In that case, very easy to specify a postprocessing run that makes the
> XML sane again.
again it depends what you are post processing with. As Mike Kay just
commented it's not at all clear if, given the current draft spec, Xquery
has enough of a handle on generation of namespaces to transform a
document such that any required namespace declarations appear at the top.
XSLT can do this if there are no Qnames in content, but if there are,
I don't think either language can make this post processing run.
If you are moving namespace declarations to the top, you have to be
prepared to change prefixes in the case that there are clashing
definitions. If your QNames-in-content are, say, an XPath expression,
that means you need a full XPath parser in order to be able to discover
just exactly where the Qnames are, and what prefixes they have.
What "easy specification" did you have in mind to make this XML document
"sane"
<x>
<x xmlns:x="data:,x" select="x:y[.='x:y']"/>
<x xmlns:x="data:,y" select="x:y[.='x:y']"/>
</x>
so ending up with something like
<x xmlns:x="data:,x" xmlns:y="data:,y">
<x select="x:y[.='x:y']"/>
<x select="y:y[.='x:y']"/>
</x>
If you want to say that you just want to ban the first version, OK: as I
said above that's a defendable position, and let the market decide if
that's acceptable, but I don't see how you can say that you can "easily"
normalise the documents that you just banned into a form that would be
acceptable to the new order.
David
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
|
