Re: c namespace in output

Hi Matt,

The (non-normative) section on namespace fix-up says:

  "When a element is removed via p:unwrap, an in-scope namespaces that  
are declared on the element must be copied to any child element except  
when the child element declares the same prefix or declares a new  
default namespace.".

So I guess Calabash behavior is correct here and you have to rely on  
p:namespace-rename to remove it. That said, it would probably be  
easier / more readable if @exclude-inline-prefix was somehow extended  
to cover this use case... or perhaps with the introduction of a  
similar attribute on the p:unwrap element. XProc experts, any thoughts ?

BR,
Romain.

Le 7 déc. 10 à 16:14, <matt.garrish@bell.net> <matt.garrish@bell.net>  
a écrit :

> No, no inline documents. The document comes in on the input port and  
> out on output. I can strip the pipeline down to a simple one-step  
> exec and unwrap and it still exhibits the problem for me:
>
> <p:pipeline version="1.0" xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc"  
> xmlns:c=http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc-step>
> <p:exec name="exec" command="c:/library/_bin/Applications/format.exe"
> source-is-xml="true"
> result-is-xml="true"
> wrap-result-lines="false">
> <p:with-option name="args" select="'-fs -re=c:/library/XMLGen/re/ 
> xform_daisy202.xml'"/>
> </p:exec>
> <p:unwrap match="c:result"/>
> </p:pipeline>
>
>
> I took at look at exclude-inline-prefixes, but didn't seem to apply  
> to this scenario (at least as far as I can tell). If I remove the  
> unwrap step, the c prefix is only declared on the wrapper c:result  
> element, so it's only getting added to the document root as part of  
> the unwrap.
>
> Appreciate any insight you can give me on what I might be doing  
> wrong here, though.
>
> Matt
>
> From: vojtech.toman@emc.com
> To: xproc-dev@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:33:26 -0500
> Subject: RE: c namespace in output
>
> Hi,
>
> Typically, the “unwanted” namespace declarations appear in the  
> result because they are in-scope in the p:inline bindings that you  
> specify in the pipeline. For example, if you do something like this:
>
> <p:pipeline xmlns:foo=”bar”>
>   …
>   <p:identity>
>     <p:input port=”source”>
>       <p:inline><doc></p:inline>
>     </p:input>
>   </p:identity>
>   …
> </p:pipeline>
>
> then the result of p:identity will be <doc xmlns:foo=”bar”/>
>
> To prevent certain prefixes from appearing in inline bindings, you  
> can use the exclude-inline-prefixes attribute on p:inline or on the  
> container p:pipeline/p:declare-step. This will filter out all  
> prefixes specified in exclude-inline-prefixes, provided that they  
> are not used in the document. Thus:
>
> <p:pipeline xmlns:foo=”bar”>
>   …
>   <p:identity>
>     <p:input port=”source”>
>       <p:inline exclude-inline-prefixes=”bar”><doc></p:inline>
>     </p:input>
>   </p:identity>
>   …
> </p:pipeline>
>
> produces: <doc/>
>
> (You can also exclude all unused prefixes by using exclude-inline- 
> prefixes=”#all”.)
>
> But without seeing your actual pipeline I cannot tell if exclude- 
> inline-prefixes would help in your case, or if it is a bug in  
> Calabash.
>
> Regards,
> Vojtech
>
>
> --
> Vojtech Toman
> Consultant Software Engineer
> EMC | Information Intelligence Group
> vojtech.toman@emc.com
> http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
>
> From: xproc-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xproc-dev-request@w3.org] On  
> Behalf Of Matt Garrish
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:32 PM
> To: xproc-dev@w3.org
> Subject: c namespace in output
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> When I do a p:exec followed by a p:unwrap I noticed I get a  
> namespace declaration for the c namespace on the root xml element,  
> which obviously has no use in the output document. For an xhtml  
> document, for example, I get:
>
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc-step 
> ">
>
> After much pondering I realized I can remove the namespace  
> declaration by adding:
>
> <p:namespace-rename from="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc-step" to=""/>
>
> at the end of the pipeline, but just wondering if this is the  
> “accepted” way to do this, or if I’ve just sinned against all things  
> pipeline? :)
>
> (Using Calabash 0.9.28 on WinXP.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 18:19:40 UTC