Re: XProc Minutes 31 Jan 2008

+1  for include-prefixes on p:inline

On Feb 2, 2008 2:40 PM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Looking at the minutes, the need for excluding namespaces became clearer
> to me:
>
> Norman Walsh wrote:
> > See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/01/31-minutes
> [snip]
> >   Last Call Comments
> >
> >    -> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments.html
> >
> >    Comment 100: cherry picked items
> >
> >    Should we add exclude-prefixes to serialization?
> [snip]
> >    Richard: I'm not sure I understand the issue.
> >    ... In XSLT, exclude-result-prefixes is only about literal result
> elements
> >    in the stylesheet.
> >
> >    Norm: Ok, so is there anything comparable?
> >
> >    Ricahrd: If the pipeline itself binds some prefixes, then they're in
> scope
> >    for literal elements in it.
> >
> >    Henry: Like an inline document.
> >
> >    Some discussion of what the namespace bindings are for an inline
> document
> >
> >    Alex: You could do this with a new step.
> >
> >    Norm: I don't think we want to add this to serialization and I don't
> thnk
> >    we need to do it for any other reason.
> >
> >    Henry: Someone is free to create a simplify-namespace step and we can
> >    adopt it for V.next if it's widely supported.
> >
> >    Proposed: No, we aren't going to add anything for exclude-prefixes
> >
> >    Accepted.
>
> I agree that we don't want to add this to serialization; the equivalent
> in XSLT (exclude-result-prefixes) isn't a serialization option, it's
> about what namespaces are included when a literal result element is
> created.
>
> I think it would be kind to provide a similar method to exclude
> namespaces from the document generated by <p:inline>. There are going to
> be a lot of namespaces floating around within a pipeline which won't be
> relevant in the documents you create.
>
> Although we could punt to extension steps that others write, namespaces
> cause such problems generally, I think we should make namespace handling
> as straight-forward as possible.
>
> ---
> Proposal 1:
>
> When a document is created using <p:inline>, each element node in the
> document will have a copy of the namespace nodes from the original
> element in the pipeline document with the exception of certain excluded
> namespaces. These namespaces are:
>
> (Version A: Least change)
>
>   * The XProc namespace ...
>   * Any namespace whose prefix is listed as an ignored namespace with
> an ignore-prefixes attribute
>
> (Version B: Similar to XSLT)
>
>   * The XProc namespace ...
>   * Any namespace whose prefix is listed as an extension namespace with
> an extension-prefixes attribute
>   * Any namespace whose prefix is listed as an excluded namespace with
> an exclude-inline-prefixes attribute
>
> (Version C: Simplest)
>
>   * All namespaces except those listed in the include-prefixes
> attribute on the <p:inline> element
>
> Note that the resulting element node will always have a namespace node
> for its own namespace, and for the namespaces of its ancestors in the
> resulting document, even if these namespaces would otherwise be excluded.
>
> ---
>
> Version A doesn't require any changes to the syntax, just a bit of
> rewording as above in the description of <p:inline>.
>
> Version B renames ignore-prefixes to extension-prefixes (which I think
> better describes what it does) and introduces a new
> exclude-inline-prefixes attribute.
>
> Version C adds an attribute to <p:inline> that works by *including* the
> listed namespaces rather than excluding them
>
> I think C is probably best.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeni
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
>
>


-- 
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 €