Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 10:39:38PM +0200, Michael Ludwig wrote: > Liam Quin schrieb am 06.08.2009 um 11:11:09 (-0400): > > You only need to list those elements that can occur embedded in > > another vocabulary, plus the top-level element. For example, a list > > item might not make sense without a containing list. > > But then again, it might: > > <xsl:template match="Liste"> > <list><xsl:apply-templates select="Artikel"/></list> > </xsl:apply-templates> Yes, XSLT is a really good example of richly mixed namespaces. The best nswer I have there is probably that I'm not proposing to remove the current namespace syntax! > This particular example doesn't matter much, but with XSLT used to > generate XML, it is questionable to preclude any element from appearing > embedded in another vocabulary. I don't mean to preclude it. > > So, a docbook list would automatically introduce the docbook namespace > > for all the elements it contained (until you got down to ones that > > implied some other namespace, such as "svg" perhaps). > > Voil? the concept of scope reintroduced, isn't it? It's just that > now the current namespace is not signalled by a prefix attached to > a declaration, but by the last namespace-scope-setting element. "last" here means nearest ancestor, like xml:lang and xml:base. > In streaming mode, you wouldn't know what namespace you're in unless you > swim back up the river to find a namespace-scope-setting ancestor. You have to keep track of your parents in any case. And the existing namespace mechanism works this way too. Best, Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
