Re: First stab at p:namespaces

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| 1. the <p:namespaces> elements live inside the <p:option> element, so
| that you can do per-option namespace bindings. I think the text gets
| this right, but the examples get it wrong.

Fixed.

| 2. In my proposal for this, if the from attribute on <p:namespaces>
| holds a variable reference, the namespaces come from the option named
| by the variable reference.

Fixed. I did this with 'option' and 'element' attributs.

| 3. I think authors should be able to use the order of the
| <p:namespaces> elements to determine the precedence of the different
| bindings. But to do that, it can't be an error if there's more than
| one namespace binding for the same prefix. Rather, in the event of a
| conflict, the *last* namespace binding for a given prefix needs to be
| the one used. (This is particularly important if default namespaces
| are included; see point 6.)

I think we have consensus to leave conflicts an error for V1.

| 4. It will help authors enormously if the defaults on the namespaces
| used are based on how the option/parameter gets set, namely:
|
|   (a) if the select attribute is used to set the option/parameter, and
| it contains a VariableReference[XPath], then the namespace bindings
| from the referenced option are used.
|
|   (b) if the select attribute is used to set the option/parameter, and
| it evaluates to a node-set then the in-scope namespaces from the first
| node in the selected node-set (or, if it's not an element, its parent)
| are used.
|
|   (c) otherwise, the in-scope namespaces from the <p:option> itself
| are used.

Done.

| 5. I don't think the <p:namespaces> element should have any content: I

Right.

| 6. We need to say something about the default namespace. I'm inclined
| to say that options never have a default namespace (which means that
| you have to always give a prefix to QNames passed as option values).

Right.

| Editorial thing:
|
| It says
|
|  "In this case, neither the bindings on the option passed to
| ex:delete-in-div nor the bindings on the option ultimately passed to
| p:delete are correct."
|
| I think it would be clearer to say
|
|  "In this case, the match option passed to the <p:delete> step needs
| *both* the namespace binding of 'h' specified in the ex:delete-in-div
| pipeline definition *and* the namespace binding of 'html' specified in
| the match option on the call of that pipeline. It's not sufficient to
| provide just one of the sets of bindings."

Fixed.

| Also, it might help make the exposition clearer if the option in
| ex:delete-in-div were called something like "div-child" rather than
| "match" (since that's the same name as is used for the option on
| p:delete).

Done.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Taste ripens at the expense of
http://nwalsh.com/            | happiness.--Jules Renard