Re: towards consensus on fixup, part 2

/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
| For example, p:insert or p:replace take whole element subtrees
| and put the into another document.  If those elements have dependencies
| on in-scope namespaces, you'd break the content if the in-scope namespaces
| aren't copied.  If you rely upon namespace fixup, you'd only get
| namespace declarations for the elements and attributes of that subtree and
| not extra ones that exist for the content (as they weren't copied).

Why? The node that you're inserting has some number of in-scope
namespaces. I'd expect namespace fixup to preserve all of them without
regard to which ones were (or weren't) actually needed on the element
or its descendants.

Perhaps we should tweak our definition of namespace fixup a little bit
to make that clearer:

  [Definition: Some steps can produce XML documents which could not
  have been produced by directly parsing any instance document
  (because they contain nodes which have in-scope namespaces that are
  not declared or in-scope namespaces with conflicting prefixes, for
  example). To represent such a document in a serializable way, the
  XProc processor must sometimes add additional namespace nodes,
  perhaps even renaming prefixes, to satisfy the constraints of
  Namespaces in XML. This process is referred to as namespace fixup.]

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If you cannot find the truth right
http://nwalsh.com/            | where you are, where else do you expect
                              | to find it?-- Dogen