Re: comments on the XML Canonical specification


XML Schema could also be added to the list of applications which would
be harmed by namespace rewriting.

In this snippet for instance :

<xsd:schema xmlns:xsd=""
	<xsd:complexType name="characterType" content="elementOnly">
		<xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:string"/>
		<xsd:element name="since" type="xsd:string"/>
		<xsd:element name="qualification" type="lib:qualificationType"/>

"lib:qualificationType" means the type "qualificationType" defined for
namespace prefixed by "lib" and "xsd:string" means the type "string"
defined for namespace prefixed by "xsd".

Which means that "lib:" is syntaxic sugar but if you change it, you need
to change it in the type attributes as well.

Hope this helps.


John Boyer wrote:
> Hi Lauren,
> <lauren>
> It is harmful to some documents and specifications, but not all
> documents and applications. This doesn't mean that those applications
> that do not need such a dependency are wrong, which is what the current
> language implies. I don't want DOM applications that do treat the prefix
> as syntactic sugar (since those authors read the Namespaces Rec and
> implemented it, without regard to XPath etc) to be labelled as being
> wrong. So my suggestion, again, is to come up with some language that is
> neutral on this point.
> </lauren>
> <john>Fair enough.  I can change the language further to a kind of 'There
> exist documents which are dependent...'.
> However, note that since there exist XSLT and XPath transforms in DSig's
> SignedInfo element, the DSig SignedInfo element is among those documents
> that would be harmed by namespace rewriting.
> </john>
> > 2) relative to absolute URIs
> >
> > I will be *very* happy to see this as an erratum, but I cannot remove the
> > statement from c14n until that erratum is published. I am hoping this
> occurs
> > before C14N goes to candidate rec.
> That is probably something you should pass on to the XSL WG.
> <john>Will do.</john>
> Lauren

Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea              

Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 14:43:26 UTC