W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > March 2007

Re: Ignored namespaces

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:17:37 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87hcse6ba6.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
| On 3/15/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
|> | * In ยง4.4, the XHTML namespace is ignored.  I'm not certain we should have
|> |  any defaults here.
|>
|> Comments?
|
| What is the rational for ignoring the XHTML namespace by default?

I think the idea was that XHTML is likely to be one of the most common
documentation vocabularies and it's not every going to be a reasonable
extension vocabulary, so why make authors add p:ignored-prefixes="h" on
all their pipelines.

However, it has also been suggested that documentation be allowed anywhere,
even in p:inline and we have no mechanism for "un-ignoring" a prefix.
Those two ideas aren't compatible if I want a pipeline that takes XHTML
on a p:inline, so...I'm more and more in favor of not having this default.

The p:inline example, btw, is this:


  <p:identity p:ignore-prefixes="db" xmlns:db="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook">
    <p:input port="source">
      <p:inline>
<db:para>This port provides some XHTML that is always provided as the
output of this identity step.</db:para>
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/XHTML">
<p>Some content</p>
</div>
     </p:inline>
   </p:input>
  </p:identity>

I'm not entirely sure I like having documentation inside p:inline, but
it is certainly possible to write a consistent story about it.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 12:18:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:50 GMT