- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:35:57 +0200
- To: "Ian Davis" <iand@internetalchemy.org>, mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:08:46 +0200, Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org> wrote: > This is missing the original point of this thread. It's not the > namespace nodes that I'm interested in, but the specific prefixes that > are used in the resulting XML serialization and their binding to the > CURIEs/qnames in attribute values. What you seem to be saying is that if you hack a document up textually it may mean something different if you don't keep the namespace prefixes the same. True, but this is nothing new. If you hack an xml:base attribute out, all the hrefs will have a different meaning. If you take an xml:lang out, all the text will have a different meaning. In fact that is what the XML canonicalization rec is all about, trying to keep the context intact. It says quite explicitly: "4.4 No Namespace Prefix Rewriting [...] However, there now exist a number of contexts in which namespace prefixes can impart information value in an XML document. For example, an XPath expression in an attribute value or element content can reference a namespace prefix. Thus, rewriting the namespace prefixes would damage such a document by changing its meaning (and it cannot be logically equivalent if its meaning has changed). [...] Moreover, it is possible to prove that namespace rewriting is harmful, rather than simply ineffective. [...]" http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n#NoNSPrefixRewriting Steven Pemberton
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 12:36:11 UTC