According to the xml specification though http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#scoping-defaulting the inner scope definition overrides the parent one if the NSAttName is the same. In our case of the xml above it is the same as its the default namespace. So i dont see why the inner scope namespace declaration element be removed and use the parent namespace.
AnishekOn Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote:
> For better or worse, the digital signature mechanisms follow XML! That's good to know...
> Canonicalization by deciding that namespace prefixes are significant: see
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#NoNSPrefixRewriting
>
> for discussion.
I guess it all comes down the fact that the prefix isn't expanded to
the URI.... which is the root cause of the problem of XPath requiring
the prefixes to be mapped elsewhere.
I guess there is an argument for dropping the URI altogether, and just
using the prefix. Some things would get harder, but many more would
get a lot easier.
--
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/