- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:34:19 +0100
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
2009/12/1 Henry S. Thompson wrote: >> I think this is exactly the same context than with >> xsl:element's @name and @namespace >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#xsl-element>. > Hmmm. I had forgotten about that precedent, if indeed I had > ever noticed it. I am not sure it's a good one to follow -- it > means _inter alia_ that the value of the name attribute does > not really have type QName, because that type _requires_ there > to be a namespace declaration in scope. . . Stricto sensu, that cannot be a QName for real, as this is in content. The best we could have is a *lexical* QName. In the above case, we just say its URI part is looked up first in @new-namespace if any, or in the in-scope bindings. I probably missed something, but I am not sure where the problem is with this approach. Regards, -- Florent Georges http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 11:35:07 UTC