- From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:23:49 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Well in that case, I propose to spell it "exclude-unused-prefixes" Mohamed On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > "Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes: > >> I am not sure that the tests exclude-inline-prefixes #006 and #007 are >> actually correct. For example, this is what the test #006 does: >> >> <p:identity> >> <p:input port="source" xmlns:test="http://www.test.com"> >> <p:inline exclude-inline-prefixes="test"><test:doc/></p:inline> >> </p:input> >> </p:identity> >> >> The test expects this to succeed, but because the namespace bound to >> "test" is explicitly excluded, shouldn't the processor fail when it >> encounters <test:doc/>? >> >> If this is indeed the case and the processor should fail, what error >> should it report? >> >> (Sorry if I just got confused.) > > No, but it's easy to get confused. The exclude-result-prefixes behavior > can only exclude namespaces that aren't actually used. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Unless one is a genius, it is best to > http://nwalsh.com/ | aim at being intelligible.--Anthony Hope > -- 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 Tuesday, 10 November 2009 16:24:29 UTC