- From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:45:17 -0700
- To: james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de>
- Cc: www-ql@w3.org
james anderson wrote:
>> Yes. I think we're in violent agreement. I was making the same point
>> to James Anderson.
>>
> no, i suggest that the distinction is slightly different.
Sorry - I was over-simplifying. We were disgreeing on the importance of
"nice" namespace serialization (beyond correctness), but of course you
wouldn't emit obviousl;y redundant attributes.
> to the best i could follow from the examples and the
> posted schematic algorithm, the proposal was to fabricate elevated
> namespace nodes as a side-effect of combination operations.
I'm unclear on your terminology. I don't know what an "elevated
namespace node" is or what you mean by "combination operations". For
the latter, do you mean element constructors with computed content, such as:
<a>{$b}</a>
My proposal is to *not* fabricate any nodes as a side-effect, but to
*re-use* the namespace mapping of $b.
--
--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 13:45:24 UTC