W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mobileok-checker@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Namespaces in messages.properties.xml

From: Roland Gülle <roland@7val.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 06:55:51 +0200
Message-Id: <E35C7E89-1856-45F1-856B-9E2619F30BC6@7val.com>
Cc: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>

> Yeah it works -- the only reason we thought it wasn't quite right is
> it doesn't seem proper to use the moki namespace on this document? I
> tend to think of a namespace as more or less mapping to a DOCTYPE, if
> you know what I mean, that one namespace defines the elements in one
> kind of document. This isn't necessarily true -- it's merely a
> namespace -- and if in fact this kind of usage is totally normal,
> well, let's go for it. But it seems a little odd.
Agreed.
>
> We could define a second namespace. Is that overkill?
no. If we define a second namespace, I can change the moki:msgI18n  
function.

> Let me finally ask this to the experts: the reason this seems to be an
> issue in the XSL is that we make the default namespace for the XSL
> stylesheet the moki one. Do we have to do this? I understand that then
> we have to qualify a bunch of other stuff as "moki:..."; is there any
> way around that?
I don't know a way around.
Only remove the default namespace and add the moki: namespace for  
each check.

> At the moment it seems like it's a question of whether re-using the
> moki namespace is much of a sin. As this is a W3C product, seems like
> we should take extra care to get it right.
Agreed!
So the question again: Is there another way, maybe changing the  
default namespace?

  Roland
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 04:56:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:03 GMT