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>
    <p:input port="source">
            <xhtml:p>Some document to transform</xhtml:p>

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,

Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:42 UTC