- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:01:08 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Well now let's go to the corner case what do mean this <p:xslt> <p:input port="parameters"> <p:inline> <c:param-set xmlns="http://my/xslt/parameter/namespace"> <c:param name="foo" value="1" namespace=""/> <c:param name="bar" value="2" namespace="" xmlns=""/> <c:param name="baz" value="3" xmlns=""/> </c:param-set> </p:inline> </p:input> </p:xslt> And what if there is no namespace defined for unprefixed element ? Mohamed On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Toman_Vojtech@emc.com was heard to say: > [...] > | This solution is, in my opinion, much cleaner/clearer (although it needs > | about the same amount of code as the previous one :-) > > Yes. For generating c:param elements, the @name (is an NCName) + > @namespace route is definitely the easiest. (We mandate it in > p:parameters.) > > (I don't think, though maybe I was confused, that there was ever any motion > to remove that option.) > > However, the QName form is easier if you're going to be putting a few > in explicitly: > > <p:xslt> > <p:input port="parameters"> > <p:inline> > <c:param-set xmlns:x="http://my/xslt/parameter/namespace"> > <c:param name="x:foo" value="1"/> > <c:param name="x:bar" value="2"/> > <c:param name="x:baz" value="3"/> > </c:param-set> > </p:inline> > </p:input> > </p:xslt> > > *All* I was suggesting was that this: > > <c:param-set xmlns:x="http://my/xslt/parameter/namespace"> > <c:param name="x:foo" value="1" namespace="http:/something/else"/> > </c:param-set> > > should be an error. Saying that its supposed to be equivalent to this: > > <c:param-set xmlns:x="http://my/xslt/parameter/namespace"> > <c:param name="x:foo" value="1" xmlns:x="http:/something/else"/> > </c:param-set> > > doesn't seem very useful because parameter names are QNames so the > implementation never cares about the prefix anyway. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The First Amendment is often > http://nwalsh.com/ | inconvenient. But that is besides the > | point. Inconvenience does not absolve > | the government of its obligation to > | tolerate speech.--Justice Anthony > | Kennedy, in 91-155 > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 15:01:47 UTC