W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > September 2008

RE: XProc Minutes 28 August 2008

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 03:00:21 -0400
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870C75DD76@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

Hi all,

I read the agenda (quite a list!) and I wonder if any decision has been
made with regard to the in-scope namespace bindings for options
specified using the shortcut form:

>   Item 014
> 
>    Mohamed: The example uses p:namespaces where it isn't needed.
>    Norm: Let's let the editor reconsider the example
>    Mohamed: I think the example predates the default rule, 
> and that's the
>    problem.
>    <scribe> ACTION: Norm to reconsider and fix this example 
> [recorded in
>    http://www.w3.org/2008/08/28-xproc-minutes.html#action02[10]]
>    Mohamed: Vojtech observes that it's not clear when we use 
> the short format
>    for the option.
>    Norm: If you use the short form then you can't use 
> p:namespaces, so you
>    better not need it.
> 

I was wondering whether we shouldn't say that options specified using
the shortcut form inherit the in-scope namespace bindings of the step
where they are specified - so that the following would work properly:

> |
> | <!-- prefix p should be already bound at this point -->
> | <ex:delete-in-div xmlns:ex="http://example.org/ns/ex"
> |     divchild="html:p[@class='delete']"
> |     xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"/>

In a reply, Mohammed pointed out that: 

> this bullet point in 5.7.5
> [[
> Otherwise, the in-scope namespaces from the element providing the
> value are used.
> ]]
> is not far from saying that

Perhaps 5.7.5 should be more explicit about what happens with option
shortcuts? 


Regards,
Vojtech
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 07:01:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 September 2008 07:01:10 GMT