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: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:15:46 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87hcsdxt2l.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
| On 3/21/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
|> I'm not entirely sure I like having documentation inside p:inline, but
|> it is certainly possible to write a consistent story about it.
|
| Are you saying that right now one could write:
|
| <p:xslt name="t">
|    <p:input port="stylesheet">
|        <p:inline>
|            <xhtml:p>Let me tell you what this does</xhtml:p>
|            <xsl:stylesheet>...</xsl:stylesheet>
|        </p:inline>
|    </p:input>
|    <p:input port="source">
|        <p:inline>
|            <xhtml:p>Some document to transform</xhtml:p>
|        </p:inline>
|    </p:input>
| </p:xslt>
|
| And the <xsl:stylesheet> element would be passed to XSLT as the
| stylesheet, ignoring the <xhtml:p> element? Then how could I pass
| XHTML to the 'source' input?

Mohamed has argued that we should allow documentation everywhere, including
p:inline. If we accepted that proposal, then yes, you could do what your
first inline does, provided that you wrote it this way:

 <p:xslt name="t">
    <p:input port="stylesheet">
        <p:inline p:ignore-prefixes="xhtml">
            <xhtml:p>Let me tell you what this does</xhtml:p>
            <xsl:stylesheet>...</xsl:stylesheet>
        </p:inline>
    </p:input>
    <p:input port="source">
        <p:inline>
            <xhtml:p>Some document to transform</xhtml:p>
        </p:inline>
    </p:input>
 </p:xslt>

the xhtml:p in the first p:inline would be ignored, because it's in
an ignored namespace. The second would not because it is not.

I think accepting Mohamed's proposal requires us to have no default
ignored namespace.

| I am not sure that allowing documentation in <p:input> is a good idea.

Nor am I, but it's not technically difficult.

| And I am not sure that using an element in the XHTML namespace as the
| root element for your documentation is a good idea either.

Well, of course not. You'd use DocBook, wouldn't you? :-)

But seriously, I think there will be lots of folks who find
documenting with XHTML "obvious".

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

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

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2007 14:15:58 GMT

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