• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@i...>
• Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:17:08 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <1018364877.13363.1433.camel@l...>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]
> Sent: 09 April 2002 16:08
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  [good] Question about NS 1.1
> 
> On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 11:02, james anderson wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
  • RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

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

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