Re: Proposal for Additions for Namespace Fixup

On 9/6/07, Norman Walsh <> wrote:
> / Alex Milowski <> was heard to say:
> | This proposal gets us a long way there.
> This proposal is of the form, "We're going to spell it all out, and
> here it is. We believe we got it exactly right, we've enumerated every
> possible errors and described precisely what to do in each case."
> I had hoped not to attempt to got here.

Most of these steps have straightforward and sensible ways in which
the namespace declarations should be fixed.  Only rename is really

I think this gets rid of 99% of the problems and that is a really good thing.

I don't think there is a middle ground since if we say that implementations
should do namespace fixup in the steps, they'll do it differently and cause
interoperability issues.

For example, I've choosen to push namespace declarations down to
children when the parent changes or gets removed.  This preserves the
in-scope namespace for child elements but not for text children.  If you
push them up, you widen the scope to siblings of the removed parent
and I believe that is the wrong thing.    By pushing them down the
minimum amount of the infoset changes as the children's and sibling
element's in-scope namespaces remain the same.

--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 22:41:39 UTC