W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > June 2010

[Bug 9257] The rules for when an implied namespace binding conflicts should be more precise

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:11:55 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OR64p-0007Xa-7l@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9257


Josh Spiegel <josh.spiegel@oracle.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |




--- Comment #6 from Josh Spiegel <josh.spiegel@oracle.com>  2010-06-22 16:11:54 ---

Going this route, I think you would also need to make a change for 3.2.1
upd:mergeUpdates (2) f. and 3.2.2 upd:applyUpdates (1) f.  It seems, for
example, that upd:insertAttributes could inappropriately create a conflict with
upd:rename. 

Here is a slightly different route you may have already considered.  First, add
two new definitions:

[Definition: The implied namespace binding of a QName is the association of its
namespace prefix (or absence thereof) with its namespace URI (or absence
thereof).]

<new>
[Definition: The implied namespace binding of an element is the implied binding
of its name. ]

[Definition: The implied namespace binding of an attribute is the implied
binding of its name unless the name has no prefix in which case the attribute
does not have an implied binding. ]
</new>

Delete "QName of" text in the appropriate places.  For example:

2.4.1 Insert (3) b.
<old>No attribute node in $alist may have a QName whose implied namespace
binding conflicts with a ...</old>
<new>No attribute node in $alist may have an implied namespace binding that
conflicts with a ...</new>

(4) b (same)

2.4.3.1 Replacing a Node Bullet 4.b.
<old>No attribute node in $rlist may have a QName whose implied namespace
binding conflicts with a ...</old>
<new>No attribute node in $rlist may have an implied namespace binding that
conflicts with a ...</new>

In my opinion, this solution is cleaner because it is more up front about the
nature of conflicting implied bindings and it also eliminates the need for the
special cases.  Sorry in advance if I am missing something.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 16:11:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:31 UTC