Evan Lenz wrote:
> I'm not sure that it would be very reliably portable. Any processing model
> that doesn't consider [in-scope namespaces] to be of significance (because
> it assumes that XML namespaces are for putting element and attribute names
> in a namespace, how novel) will throw away the prefixes and everything will
> break.
But that's a bug in the processing model, isn't it? (Maybe I'm missing
something here. What processing model is omitting this?)
> Let me rephrase the question: Is it too late to require QNames in values to
> be resolved with an application-level namespace declaration?
Yes.
-- Ron
