Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
bryan wrote: >>transform: elements and children in the unknown namespace are >>transformed into known elements and text. Ex: Henry Thompson's normal >>forms. > Thanks for the mention of normal forms, hadn't seen it before, now I > have some reading for next weekend. However looking at what I googled up > > http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/normalForms.html > > I couldn't see right off how one manages transform of unknown namespace > elements to known elements and text: Here is an entirely trivial example: <x:foo xmlns:x="unknown" a="1" x:a="2"> <y:bar xmlns:y="other"/> </x:foo> Becomes: <element name="foo" ns="unknown" xmlns="known"> <attribute name="a" value="1"/> <attribute name="a" ns="unknown" value="2"/> <text> </text> <element name="bar" ns="other"/> <text> </text> </element> (I think I got this from a post by Simon St. Laurent.) It's a kind of transparent tunneling. > If I have <x:code xmlns:x="urn:whatever:namespace">90952</x:code> > somewhere in the xml coming into my application, and I have absolutely > no knowledge of the namespace and the element of local name code in it, > how does normal Forms or any technology help me to securely transform > that to <zip>90952</zip>. This is what I think you're saying it does, > and this is what I find strange and mystifying that it could do, > although I am willing to be astounded if it be so. It's not about meaning, it's about markup. You don't have to lose information just because you don't understand it. Bob >>In the spirit of your list, this doesn't include strategies by which >>unknown namespaces become known, such as James Clark's NXML locate and >>David Tolpin's Regular Associations, recently mentioned on this list. > > > Thanks for the info, still not sure if I understand the Regular > Associations post yet. Yeah, how an unknown namespace becomes known > isn't what I'm interested in right now. What I'm thinking about > specifically is models for how unknown namespaces are treated that > remain unknown all the way through an application, mainly because we > have an application in which I suppose that is going to be a big > problem.
|
