W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > April 2010

Re: The law of unintended consequences

From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:31:11 -0400
To: XProc-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: 20100416163116.GA36585@mail11a.verio-web.com>

At 02:44 PM 4/16/2010, you wrote:
>Rob Koberg <rob@koberg.com> writes:
> > I did not run it. But I meant to say the xsl:element in the XSL is
> > interpreted differently than literal result elements. It is treated
> > more as a start tag/end tag. How? No clue :)
>Close. What happens is the namespace gets excluded so there's no binding
>for c: in the stylesheet so it fails with an undeclared prefix.

That's what I guessed :-), but then I second-guessed myself along the 
lines of why should the namespace be excluded?

Is there a rule that says it should, on the grounds that it has been inherited?

If so, what's the rationale for this rule? (If it's that such a 
namespace usually doesn't belong in the stylesheet, isn't that 
killing a gnat with a blowtorch?)


Wendell Piez                            mailto:wapiez@mulberrytech.com
Mulberry Technologies, Inc.                http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street                    Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207                                          Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD  20850                                 Fax: 301/315-8285
   Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 20:31:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:03:06 UTC