- From: Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:04:13 +0000
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- CC: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
David, I will review the example. What the namespaces file in my example is supposed to do is assign un-prefixed instances of href,src,type,rel,hreflang,method and tref to the xml namespace, _as if they were in that namespace_, ahem, so that their semantics are defined by documentation found at that URI, as well as the unobtrusive namespaces file also found at that URI. If that didn't come through, I will clean it up. Peter ________________________________________ From: David Carlisle [davidc@nag.co.uk] Sent: August 20, 2012 4:05 AM To: Rushforth, Peter Cc: liam@w3.org; public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org Subject: Re: use cases On 20/08/2012 01:37, Rushforth, Peter wrote: > If the information in an unobtrusive namespaces file can be > retrieved/created by xslt from an xml+namespaces document, should it > not be reasonably possible that the result of processing a > namespace-free document + a unobtrusive namespace file be equivalent > to the result of an xml processor processing the equivalent > xml+namespaces document ie effectively no data model differences? That was my original understanding of Liam's proposal which was why I questioned the usage which appeared to be specifying namespaces for unprefixed attributes, as there is no equivalent for that in standard xml+namespace processing. David
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 10:04:41 UTC