• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• To: philippe.poulard@s...
• Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:43:26 GMT

> Surely. We can find cases when one is better that the other. Naming 
> elements has the advantage that in many cases we can identify the 
> element in fault at a glance.

yes, for humans names (including prefixes)  are usually better.
In a schematron context though there's no standard way of expressing the
required namespace bindings to a following process, so (for machine use)
it's simpler to use the prefix free form which you can just expose as
a string for some later Xpath parser to pick up.

In a system where you have full control of the pipeling mechanisms, the
tradefoffs may well be different...


David

________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Using Saxon 9 as a Schematron 1.5 back end
    • From: Philippe Poulard <philippe.poulard@s...>

• References:
  • Using Saxon 9 as a Schematron 1.5 back end
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
  • RE: Using Saxon 9 as a Schematron 1.5 back end
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Using Saxon 9 as a Schematron 1.5 back end
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: Using Saxon 9 as a Schematron 1.5 back end
    • From: Philippe Poulard <philippe.poulard@s...>
  • Re: Using Saxon 9 as a Schematron 1.5 back end
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Using Saxon 9 as a Schematron 1.5 back end
    • From: Philippe Poulard <philippe.poulard@s...>