W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org > February 2004

RE: New Namespace

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:25:17 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202A14D26@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, <www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org>

We discussed your comment (twice actually), and see that you have a
point.  Our concern with continuing the old namespace would cause a
silent change in behavior, leading to unpredictable results.

For instance, the following example from a previous version of the spec:

<?xml version='1.0'?>
<document>
  <p>The relevant excerpt is:</p>
  <quotation>
    <include xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
       href="source.xml#xpointer(string-range(chapter/p[1],'Sentence
2')/
             range-to(string-range(chapter/p[2]/i,'3.',1,2)))"/>
  </quotation>
</document>

Where source.xml contains:

<chapter>
  <p>Sentence 1.  Sentence 2.</p>
  <p><i>Sentence 3.  Sentence 4.</i>  Sentence 5.</p>
</chapter>

The old result was:

<?xml version='1.0'?>
<document>
  <p>The relevant excerpt is:</p>
  <quotation>
    <p xml:base="http://www.example.com/source.xml">Sentence 2.</p>
  <p xml:base="http://www.example.com/source.xml"><i>Sentence 3.</i></p>
  </quotation>
</document>

The new result is:

<?xml version='1.0'?>
<document>
  <p>The relevant excerpt is:</p>
  <quotation>
    <chapter xml:base="http://www.example.com/source.xml">
  <p>Sentence 1.  Sentence 2.</p>
  <p><i>Sentence 3.  Sentence 4.</i>  Sentence 5.</p>
</chapter>
  </quotation>
</document>

This represents a backward-incompatible change, and as such we felt
flagging this with an error was required, and we chose to signal the
error through a namespace change.

However, reconsideration of this design based on your comment led us to
see another way forward.  The spec currently warns against using
fragment identifiers - if we made this a fatal error instead we would
protect users from a silent change in behavior, while keeping include
elements that don't use fragment identifiers working.  This seemed like
a much better solution to the WG.

In sum, we accept your comment and will revert the namespace.  We hope
that you haven't already converted all your documents to the new
namespace already :-).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-xinclude-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-xml-xinclude-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Elliotte Rusty Harold
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 7:37 AM
> To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Subject: New Namespace
> 
> 
> Does the namespace really have to be changed? I have a large quantity
> of documents that use the old namespace, and which would still be
> legal in the new syntax except for the change in namespace URI. This
> includes an entire published book (Processing XML with Java) and
> dozens of seminar and course note collections. The changes in this
> draft do not seem to be so significant as to require a change in the
> namespace URI. I encourage the working group to revert to the 2001
> namespace.
> 
> --
> 
>    Elliotte Rusty Harold
>    elharo@metalab.unc.edu
>    Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
>    http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
> 
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaula
it
> A
> 
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 17:25:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:34 UTC