- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 07:36:53 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 9/6/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / 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? RIght, but that's not "namespace fixup" in the traditional sense for serialization. Namespace fixup usually just copies/generates the minimum set. I want it to do just what you said above and for the same reason. -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 14:36:58 UTC