• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 09 Apr 2002 11:33:37 -0400
• In-reply-to: <NCBBKFMJCLIMOBIGKFMJEEPPHHAA.ldodds@i...>
• References: <NCBBKFMJCLIMOBIGKFMJEEPPHHAA.ldodds@i...>

On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 11:17, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> > 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?

It might, but it's a lot of work just to figure out whether you need to
keep something around or throw it away, and your results don't apply to
the child elements.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

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

• Prev by Date: RE: [good] Question about NS 1.1
• Next by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 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