- From: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:30:25 -0500
- To: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org, www-dom-request@w3.org
>"An element is said to be within the scope of the binding"
Would "within the scope of a prefix-to-namespace binding" help?
>the consequence of the draft's inversion is that the it suggests that,
>where the apparent binding (after all there _is_ a binding) conflicts
>with the contingent binding which would be imputed from the incidental
>element identifier, it is necessary to introduce a new binding.
This is correct. Remember, the DOM does not require that all namespace
declaration attributes be present. Thus, there may be implied bindings,
which may conflict with explicit ones. The namespace fixup algorithm is
about finding and "realizing" those; the namespace lookup algorithm
behaves "as if" fixup had been performed.
Yes, if a different prefix happens to be available which is bound to the
same URI, changing the prefix would suffice. I know this was considered
during the design of the namespace fixup/lookup algorithms, and various
trade-offs were discussed; I'd have to re-read the pseudocode to refresh
myself on what the current status is and why.
______________________________________
Joe Kesselman, IBM Next-Generation Web Technologies: XML, XSL and more.
"may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej" ("Put down the squeezebox and nobody
gets hurt.")
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 09:30:43 UTC