W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org > August 2012

RE: use cases

From: Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:04:13 +0000
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
CC: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1CD55F04538DEA4F85F3ADF7745464AF1AE2FDA0@S-BSC-MBX4.nrn.nrcan.gc.ca>

I will review the example.  What the namespaces file in my example is supposed to do is assign un-prefixed instances of href,src,type,rel,hreflang,method and tref to the xml namespace, _as if they were in that namespace_, ahem, so that their semantics are defined by documentation found at that URI, as well as the unobtrusive namespaces file also found at that URI.

If that didn't come through, I will clean it up.

From: David Carlisle [davidc@nag.co.uk]
Sent: August 20, 2012 4:05 AM
To: Rushforth, Peter
Cc: liam@w3.org; public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org
Subject: Re: use cases

On 20/08/2012 01:37, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
> If the information in an unobtrusive namespaces file can be
> retrieved/created by xslt from an xml+namespaces document, should it
> not be reasonably possible that the result of processing a
> namespace-free document + a unobtrusive namespace file be equivalent
> to the result of an xml processor processing the equivalent
> xml+namespaces document ie effectively no data model differences?

That was my original understanding of Liam's proposal which was why I
questioned the usage which appeared to be specifying namespaces for
unprefixed attributes, as there is no equivalent for that in standard
xml+namespace processing.

Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 10:04:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:44:53 UTC