Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 2010-02-20 21:40 +0530, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Selvaganesh <selvaganesh_t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > <hov:template match="caseref"> It is not unprecedented to use a prefix other than "xsl", and there is certainly nothing wrong with it. Though it does break with convention I can't think of a technical reason to deprecate it. Using a prefix other than "xsl" is useful when writing stylesheets that write stylesheets (especially based on the conventions of XSLT 1 engines). The most common convention, is to use the prefix "xsl" for XSLT language instructions. The XSLT spec, also uses the prefix "xsl" within itself. Only for documentary purposes ... there are no requirements to use that prefix. Though, it is a common practice to have business specific namespaces (URIs & prefixes) in the instance documents. I find using specific prefixes is only useful in documentation. There are 33 different namespaces in the UBL 2.0 vocabulary (55 and counting in UBL 2.1) and for consistency in the documentation the UBL TC has adopted a collection of namespace prefixes. But in no way do we require UBL users to use those prefixes in their XML. Having a documentary convention helps the human reader not have to constantly guess what namespace is being referred to. But such a convention is only useful to the human reader. Any XML instance processing based on an expected prefix is wrong because the process has no idea what prefixes the end user is going to use in an arbitrary input XML document. I hope this helps. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
|
