- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:18:13 -0400
- To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <m21vremjka.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"David A. Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> writes: > Any comments on this ? Sorry. I'm behind on xproc-dev mail, as you can tell. > Looking into this further, I am coming to the conclusion that > extension functions should NOT share the same prefix as any schema > being processed by the processor. > For example is this *input* document to xproc pipeline parsable. > > <p:pipeline 'xmlns:p=http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc'> > <p:identity/> > </p:pipeline> > > By this xproc pipeline > > <p:pipeline 'xmlns:p=http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc'> > <p:string-replace match="p:pipeline"> > <p:with-option name="replace" > select="concat('"',p:base-uri(//p:identity[1]),'"')" > > </p:string-replace> > </p:pipeline> > > note the use of the same prefix in replace, the function and the argument That should work just fine. The function "base-uri" is identified by a QName who's namespace URI is "http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc" and who's local name is "base-uri". Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Vision is the art of seeing things http://nwalsh.com/ | invisible.-- Swift
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 11:18:54 UTC