- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:38:36 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2wspjifb7.fsf_-_@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: | 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. Could we punt to XML 1.1? You can just undeclare them in XML 1.1. | --- | 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 We could name that 'exclude-prefixes', right? | (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>. We don't have ignored namespaces anymore, so... | Version B renames ignore-prefixes to extension-prefixes (which I think | better describes what it does) and introduces a new | exclude-inline-prefixes attribute. We don't have them either :-) | 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. I'm inclined to go with A, actually, adding an 'exclude-prefixes' attribute to p:inline. Well, honestly, I'm inclined to use XML 1.1, but... Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The truest wild beasts live in the most http://nwalsh.com/ | populous places.-- Gracián
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 15:38:58 UTC