• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:39:32 +0000
• In-reply-to: <200209301700.NAA21715@m...>
• References: <87adlzzbbi.fsf@n...> <200209301700.NAA21715@m...>

John Cowan <jcowan@r...> wrote:
| Norman Walsh scripsit:

|> But if we allowed the PI target to be a QName...
| 
| It can't be.  But a PI target *can* be a notation name, which a NOTATION
| declaration then maps to a URI.
| 
| Ta-da!

Doesn't "can" leave room for false positives?  Wouldn't it be better to
have the PI target imply the *presence* of a notation reference within the
body, as per some internal *syntax* which it would be the purpose of the
target to identify?  

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
  • Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Nudged OT [Ann] Next generation XSL-XHTML tools from ALT Mobile
• Next by Date: Just Can't Get No REST
• Previous by thread: Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping
• Next by thread: Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread