Re: Namespace Fixup Proposal

On 9/6/07, Norman Walsh <> wrote:
> / Alex Milowski <> was heard to say:
> | On 9/6/07, Norman Walsh <> wrote:
> |> / Alex Milowski <> 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

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 14:36:58 UTC