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

Re: Namespace Fixup Proposal

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:34:49 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2642ovxgm.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
| There are some steps, like p:insert and p:replace, where fixup isn't
| the correct thing.  Those steps should preserve the in-scope namespaces
| so that any content that relies up it still works.

How can fixup be the wrong thing? In fact, how does fixup even arise
in p:insert or p:replace; they exchange elements and, assuming that
the input document has the right namespace bindings, the output must,
mustn't it?

Actually, to my mind, this stands as an argument in favor of namespace
fixup for all outputs.

Allowing un-fixed-up markup to flow between steps lets it get deeply
burried in documents through operations that wouldn't normally cause
fixup to be necessary.

On a separate, but related, topic, I'm confused about how the SAX
argument plays out. Why is it hard to do this fixup with SAX? When do
you ever have to buffer more than one start element event?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We humans are such limited
http://nwalsh.com/            | creatures--how is it that there are so
                              | few limits when it comes to human
                              | suffering?--Pierre Marivaux

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 11:34:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT