- 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