- From: Jeff Rafter <lists@jeffrafter.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 13:25:30 -0800
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- CC: 'Dan Vint' <dvint@dvint.com>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Presumably they realize that this is going to make it very difficult to > reuse XSLT and XQuery code to handle the shared components? There's some > support for it in 2.0 through the *:local-name construct, but it's a bit > kludgey. Yep. But a lot of the reasoning behind the decision is the working group process at the design level. Ultimately it comes back to versioning-- and the assumption is that versioning needs to be done through the namespace. In addition, uniformity of structure cannot be achieved so it is assumed that each divergent structure with a duplicate name needs to be in a different namespace. I am not sure either of those assumptions are true; but certainly they are easier. Luckily, there is very little overlap in the real world-- meaning you don't typically see any two <BORROWER> elements in the same document (most of the XSLT will be used to carry one set of concepts from a transactional instance to some in-house representation, or from one instance to another instance for coordination). > There's some support for it in 2.0 through the *:local-name > construct, but it's a bit kludgey. Can't this kludge be approximated through the (even more kludgey) kludge of: *[local-name()="foo"] Cheers, Jeff Rafter
Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 21:25:59 UTC