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

Re: The law of unintended consequences

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:39:58 -0400
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m2pr1zuo69.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Wendell Piez <wapiez@mulberrytech.com> writes:
> Is there a rule that says it should, on the grounds that it has been inherited?

The way exclude-inline-prefixes works is like exclude-result-prefixes
in XSLT. If you explicitly ask the processor to discard a namespace
inside a p:inline, it will.

This is usually a good thing, it allows you to avoid having all sorts
of extension namespaces and other cruft turn up on your nice clean
inlined documents.

But in this particular case, I had a stylesheet inline and I excluded
a namespace that the stylesheet uses. Now, if the use was on a literal
element or attribute name, then everything would have been ok. You
can't throw away a namespace you actually use in an element or
attribute name because that would make the document not namespace

I think this is going to be rare, it just caused me to wrinkle my brow
for a few seconds.

If this was really a problem, you could move the
exclude-inline-prefixes attributes down off the document element onto
the individual p:inline elements where you wanted them (and not on the
one that contains the stylesheet).

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man can believe a considerable deal
http://nwalsh.com/            | of rubbish, and yet go about his daily
                              | work in a rational and cheerful
                              | manner.--Norman Douglas

Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 20:40:32 UTC

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