- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:09:13 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2d4wvoph2.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say: | On 9/6/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: |> / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say: |> | There are some steps, like p:insert and p:replace, where fixup isn't |> | the correct thing. Those steps should preserve the in-scope namespaces |> | so that any content that relies up it still works. |> |> How can fixup be the wrong thing? In fact, how does fixup even arise |> in p:insert or p:replace; they exchange elements and, assuming that |> the input document has the right namespace bindings, the output must, |> mustn't it? |> | | Sorry... that's no quite what I meant. | | Namespace fixup would only guarantee that the elements and attributes | had their namespaces declared. If you had content that relied upon | in-scope namepaces on the element being inserted or that is the replacement, | you'd lose those in-scope namespaces that aren't used by the element or | attribute names. Huh? When I insert an element into a document, I expect *all* of it's in-scope namespaces to travel with it. How else could insert be expected to be useful? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Internet connection, $19.95 a month. http://nwalsh.com/ | Computer, $799.95. Modem, $149.95. | Telephone line, $24.95 a month. | Software, free. USENET transmission, | hundreds if not thousands of dollars. | Thinking before posting, priceless. | Somethings in life you can't buy. For | everything else, there's | MasterCard.--Graham Reed, in the Scary | Devil Monastery
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 14:09:38 UTC