W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: WD-DOM-Level-3-Core-20030226 : Appendix B: Namespaces Algorithm

From: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:30:25 -0500
To: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
Cc: www-dom@w3.org, www-dom-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF794BA2A4.8C5845C7-ON85256CE2.004EDA2D-85256CE2.004FB1C0@us.ibm.com>

>"An element is said to be within the scope of the binding"

Would "within the scope of a prefix-to-namespace binding" help?

>the consequence of the draft's inversion is that the it suggests that, 
>where the apparent binding (after all there _is_ a binding) conflicts 
>with the contingent binding which would be imputed from the incidental 
>element identifier, it is necessary to introduce a new binding.

This is correct. Remember, the DOM does not require that all namespace 
declaration attributes be present. Thus, there may be implied bindings, 
which may conflict with explicit ones. The namespace fixup algorithm is 
about finding and "realizing" those; the namespace lookup algorithm 
behaves "as if" fixup had been performed.

Yes, if a different prefix happens to be available which is bound to the 
same URI, changing the prefix would suffice. I know this was considered 
during the design of the namespace fixup/lookup algorithms, and various 
trade-offs were discussed; I'd have to re-read the pseudocode to refresh 
myself on what the current status is and why.

Joe Kesselman, IBM Next-Generation Web Technologies: XML, XSL and more. 
"may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej"  ("Put down the squeezebox and nobody 
gets hurt.")
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 09:30:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:11 UTC