On 18/06/2006 12:59, Mark Birbeck wrote: > My conclusion is that the awkwardness of using XSLT 1.0 to process > XHMTL documents that contain QNames does not justify dropping the use > of QNames as a scoping mechanism, especially since QNames are used so > widely in XML languages. My conclusions are the exact opposite: the lack of support for qnames in the vast majority of XML processing tools DOES justify looking for an alternative. We shouldn't repeat past mistakes. As I pointed out in my response to Karl, a more robust solution would simply to use the full URIs wherever you have currently specified qnames or CURIEs. Ian -- http://purl.org/NET/iand Blogging at... http://iandavis.com/blog Working on... http://directory.talis.com/Received on Monday, 19 June 2006 07:29:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:02 GMT