• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:01:59 +0200
• Organization: nil
• References: <NCBBKFMJCLIMOBIGKFMJEEPPHHAA.ldodds@i...>
• Reply-to: james.anderson@s...

this retriction does not, in itself, solve the problems which can arise
as a consequence of mutations.

Leigh Dodds wrote:
> 
> ...
> > > i'm curious how that came to pass.
> >
> > I _think_ it's because of QNames in attribute/element values, but it may
> > also have to do with canonicalization discussions.  I seem to remember
> > it being an issue for the long-ago XML Fragment discussions, but I'm not
> > sure.
> 
> If that's the case then why not limit 'in-scope' to mean those namespaces
> used by the element, or it's direct element or attribute content?
> 
> Wouldn't that staunch the bleeding?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> L.

• References:
  • RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by Date: [ANN] Common API for XML Pull Parsing (XMLPULL V1)
• Previous by thread: RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Next by thread: RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread