• From: "Don Park" <donpark@q...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:12:46 -0800

Rick,

I am in complete agreement without regarding the use of DOM documents as
input to XSL processors.

However, I think we should revisit what the conflicts are specifically.
Could you point out what aspect of the XSL or the namespace spec forces DOM
tree to be rebuilt over and over?

As far as expanded DOM names being illegal XML names, one possible option is
to establish a business practice requiring all URI used as namespace name to
not contain any illegal XML name characters.  After all, their meanings are
undefined and they are only required to be universally unique.

BTW, I have removed XSL mailing list from this thread because this issue
affects more than XSL.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The Peace Process: DOM and namespaces...
    • From: Tyler Baker <tyler@i...>

• Prev by Date: Possible enhancements to Namespaces to allow valiadation
• Next by Date: Re: The Peace Process: DOM and namespaces...
• Previous by thread: Re: The Peace Process: DOM and namespaces...
• Next by thread: Re: The Peace Process: DOM and namespaces...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread