• To: Leigh Dodds <ldodds@i...>
• Subject: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:02:31 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Organization: nil
• References: <NCBBKFMJCLIMOBIGKFMJMEPMHHAA.ldodds@i...>
• Reply-to: james.anderson@s...

the infoset is not itself the problem. the problem begins where one
expects or specifies that the set of "in-scope" namespaces be available
as a static value.

i'm curious how that came to pass.

...

Leigh Dodds wrote:
> 
> I think I'm misunderstanding something, can anyone point
> where my train of thought is being derailed:
> 
> - The Infoset defines that the namespace information items
> for an element are all those that are in scope. i.e. defined
> on this element or it's ancestors.
> 
> - This leads to bleeding of namespaces from ancestors causing
> the problems cited in the NS 1.1 Reqs. w.r.t SOAP/XQuery
> 
> - This leads to revising the namespace spec to allow undeclaring of
> namespaces, alleviating the issues in the other specifications.
> 
> Why let changes ripple out like this? Why can't the infoset definitions be
> changed? Why does an element need namespace information items?
> 
> I'm sure there's a good reason, I'm just not sure what it is.
> 
> Cheers,
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Naive Question about NS 1.1
    • From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by Date: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Previous by thread: Naive Question about NS 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread