- From: Roland Gülle <roland@7val.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 06:55:51 +0200
- To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
- Cc: public-mobileok-checker <public-mobileok-checker@w3.org>
> Yeah it works -- the only reason we thought it wasn't quite right is > it doesn't seem proper to use the moki namespace on this document? I > tend to think of a namespace as more or less mapping to a DOCTYPE, if > you know what I mean, that one namespace defines the elements in one > kind of document. This isn't necessarily true -- it's merely a > namespace -- and if in fact this kind of usage is totally normal, > well, let's go for it. But it seems a little odd. Agreed. > > We could define a second namespace. Is that overkill? no. If we define a second namespace, I can change the moki:msgI18n function. > Let me finally ask this to the experts: the reason this seems to be an > issue in the XSL is that we make the default namespace for the XSL > stylesheet the moki one. Do we have to do this? I understand that then > we have to qualify a bunch of other stuff as "moki:..."; is there any > way around that? I don't know a way around. Only remove the default namespace and add the moki: namespace for each check. > At the moment it seems like it's a question of whether re-using the > moki namespace is much of a sin. As this is a W3C product, seems like > we should take extra care to get it right. Agreed! So the question again: Is there another way, maybe changing the default namespace? Roland
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 04:56:03 UTC